Jump to content

Talk:Sinosphere/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

See this discussion about whether the image should include the previously light-blue shaded regions in Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and Russia. — MarkH21talk 21:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict

This is a section for 124.168.91.91 to use to explain and get consensus for their edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

See this Quora page (https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-Sinosphere) answered by those of Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean background for discussion on the Sinosphere and how labelling it as the "Chinese" sphere is wholly incorrect. Additionally, read up information on the Yuan Dynasty, a Chinese dynasty established by Kublai Khan, which argubly places Mongolian culture within the reach of Chinese influence, considering that the Mongols had ruled territories within modern-day Northern China for decades, with some Mongols well-versed in Chinese writing and influential to Chinese culture. 124.168.91.91 (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi 124.168.91.91. On Wikipedia we use reliable sources to add information. Websites like Quora/Yahoo answers are not useful for use as citations because anyone can post their answers on these websites. Usually for topics such as this one, it is better to refer to academic sources.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand the comment about the Quora section and I know that it might not a reliable resource, but the discussion page which is written by people of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean background demonstrate their own personal understanding of the Sinosphere in which they came from, which we now should be mindful about when editing this article. In essence, it is a discussion page that already has laid out the foundations for us to write about the Sinosphere in a new, fresh manner. Additionally, you did not even address my further comments below which does comes from academic sources that can easily be researched, like about the Yuan Dynasty. Additionally, calling countries like Korea, Japan, Vietnam as peripheral countries within the East Asian cultural sphere is mind-blowing stupid since they have played an enormous role in shaping global and domestic spheres. Such is the reach of anime, Hallyu Wave, and the impact of Vietnam War and Vietnam's rising economic prosperity and consequential influence that it can no longer be ignored. 124.168.91.91 (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

{{Mongolia is NOT [part of the sinosphere}}

I am a Mongol myself and it deeply offends me to see such an article. Mongolia is not part of the East Asian cultural sphere, it is part of the Central Asian cultural sphere. Although it has been influenced by Buddhism, most other aspects remain deeply Central Asian, and to say to two conflicting groups both of whom have a great dislike for each other that their cultures are similar and/or have been influenced by the Chinese culture is a simple case of misinformation and bias. Mongolia is not entitled to be part of this no matter the historical rendering, it has been its own culture distant and against the Chinese culture for thousands of years and to simply entitle it as "part of the Sinosphere" is not only false fact-wise but also an insult to the Mongolian people and culture. Turkic/Mongolic nomadism is vastly different from the Chinese agricultural way of life, our religion (Tengrism) is animalistic and has several thousand dieties. Our way of writing is based on a Syriac derived script with many similarities to Arabic and Persian scripts. Even our modern writing system: Cyrillic, is a European writing system brought in by the Russians.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:151:100:55:2cde:f8a1:9a49:ac11 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the current map

If nobody opposes, I'm gonna change this map File:East Asian Cultural Sphere.png back to File:East Asian Cultural Sphere.svg in a few days. The reason for this is that almost all light blue countries in the former have no cultural ties with China. Southeast Asian countries like Thailand, while having significant numbers of Chinese immigrants and some minor sinospheric elements in their culture, are not enough to be included in the article. In addition, this article does not contain any academic sources to confirm this information. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda (WP:NOTADVOCACY) Hankiz 09:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at the history to see when this was changed and it was part of a series of block-evading edits that were missed before the page was protected in December. I've reverted those changes. CMD (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
File:East Asian Cultural Sphere.png itself was in that state due to sockpuppet edits, although apparently a different farm to the page here. CMD (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I've taken a look at East Asian Cultural Sphere.png and its file history looks just like a mess. It is quite difficult to notice and prevent socks from overwriting the original file on Commons. I think we should be using the SVG files from now on as it's not easy to edit an SVG map.--Hankiz 10:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Vietnam

Lệ Xuân, could you elaborate on your unexplained revert here? When did Vietnam stop being Southeast Asian? CaoNgo (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Lệ Xuân, again, do you have any explanations behind your revert? CaoNgo (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@CaoNgo: Geographically, Vietnam is Southeast Asian. But culturally Vietnam is East Asian. Please tell me a classical literary piece from Vietnam that is not written in Classical Chinese or Chữ Nôm. If you can, I'll let you do what ever you want. All right, well, good luck with that ;D P/S: You seem to speak Vietnamese too. Why don't you dare to remove this allegedly false information in the Vietnamese Wikipedia first? --Hankiz 15:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lệ Xuân: Actually, yes I can. Vietnam also has many such "classical literary piece" that you speak of written in Sanskrit. We also have the Cham script. Vietnamese itself is in the same language group as the Khmer language in Cambodia. Today, we use Latin characters. Vietnamese are an Austroasiatic people (origins in Southeast Asia) and our fellow Chams are Austronesian (also prominent in Southeast Asia). We are in ASEAN. Invasions by various dynasties of China or being a former tributary state does not imply Vietnam is in the sphere. By that logic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines and Indonesia would be included too, but no right? Burmese is literally a Sino-Tibetan language but Myanmar is not in the sphere. That's the same with Vietnam and Latin. Also, this is the English Wikipedia. I won't be surprised if the info was used verbatim for other languages, that happens on many other articles. We'll get to that later. But don't go off-topic. CaoNgo (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@CaoNgo: If you can't name one, I apparently have to report you for removing referenced material. I will wait for you. --Hankiz 16:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lệ Xuân: Report me for what, exactly? Your edits are higly POV so don't be surprised if you potentially get boomeranged. I just realized you live in Germany with *surprise surprise* Hakka ancestry. How does an Overseas mixed Vietnamese exactly know about native Vietnamese's cultural similarities with other Southeast Asian populations if you have been in Europe the entire time? I also think its weird that you never discuss the topics I brought up, but continuously make threats. Perhaps you should stick to Vietnamese Wikipedia if you're not that competent in the English language. CaoNgo (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Since you actually know Vietnamese, you should refer to this link https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B9ng_v%C4%83n_h%C3%B3a_%C4%90%C3%B4ng_%C3%81 and you will need to revert your edits immediately Cao Ngo 193.119.69.124 (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware of that link, I literally just mentioned above that most non-English WP projects are copied verbatim from English articles. I'm still not seeing any counter-viewpoints as to how Vietnam being Southeast Asian is suddenly supposed to be controversial in 2021. CaoNgo (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Aside from the obvious Chinese propaganda written on Wikipedia trying to justify China as a supposed "cradle civilisation" (controversial from my point of view) written by non-Beijing Chinese propagandists (people of Beijing seem to be the most friendliest and nicest to me whilst other Chinese ethnicties still seem to be grappling with themselves), Vietnam does retain many aspects of Ancient China. This viewpoint is often agreed with the many Beijing Chinese people I have met who find themselves at home with Vietnamese culture (personal recounts and tales only). Hence, Vietnam does belong in East Asia in its own unique way. However, it is firmly a South East Asian Nation now and its future will be directed under ASEAN from here on now. However, it is naive and stupid to dismiss the immense influence East Asian nations have had on Vietnam.193.119.69.124 (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
If we're going to talk about Ancient China, then that China has had immense influence on Southeast Asia as a whole, not just Vietnam. My point is that "personal recounts and tales" is subjective. A Chinese person who said they feel "at home" in Vietnam could say the same when they are in Singapore, Malaysia, or even in Bhutan. Have you realized that Mongolia is absent even though they had way more interactions back and forth with various Chinese kingdoms? My point is Vietnam is by all means Southeast Asian culturally and geographically. Classical Chinese was widespread even beyond Vietnam but it's kind of Vietnam-centric to single out Vietnam as being in some sort of a core "sphere", which should only really include Korea and Japan. Yeah, we have rich history with East Asia, but so does all of Southeast Asia. CaoNgo (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, here is the difference between you and I: I am a Kinh Vietnamese - but a second-generation Overseas Australian-Vietnamese. From my point of view, the naming system, the language, the clothing, the historical usage of chopsticks, the large amount of cognates between languages, has convinced me that Vietnam, a South East Asian country, has been heavily influenced by Chinese culture, and I dare say it, the Co-Prosperity Cultural sphere as well. it is only once you move overseas, interact with other cultures, and look back on your own, do you realise how much in common you have with Nihon, Josean, and Zhōngguó. Vietnamese is as similar to Mandarin Chinese as Wu people are similar to Mandarin Chinese. It's only been in these centuries that the Vietnamese identity has been reshaped by the Cham people, like by Miss Vietnam 2018. If you really want to, you can include "historical" as a note that Vietnam was an East Asian nation, but the rest of the world will realise how wrong that would seem 193.119.69.124 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware of the fact that an Asian living in the West would realize that they have a sort of a similar affinity with other Asian ethnicities. However, that is not exclusive to just the Vietnamese. This is prevalent throughout all of people descending from East and Southeast Asia, including between Thais, Han Chinese, Filipinos, Singaporeans, Laotian, etc) An example for your case, EA&SEAsians are lumped into one subgroup for Asian Australians. While not really related, in the United States, this pic [1] for "Asian ancestries as defined by the 2000 U.S. Census." puts Vietnam firmly in SEA, and Mongolia in EA. There isn't much reason to single out Vietnam specifically. Lastly this isn't really about the experience of Asians living outside of Asia, but a supposed "core sphere" within Asia itself. CaoNgo (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I don't mind if you want to delete Việt Nam from this article. I totally understand. It is a perspective of history that many Vietnamese might not agree with. But just know that people are going to disagree with you. 193.119.69.124 (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Why should I respond to you when you can't cite any academic sources to support your point? The fact is, Vietnam was heavily influenced by China, which can be seen in every cultural aspect (Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary,…). Btw, aren't The Tale of Kieu and Chinh phụ ngâm also written in Sanskrit? Hankiz 16:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
"Why should I respond to you when you can't cite any academic sources to support your point?" Are we whitewashing Vietnamese history now? Are the inscriptions at Mỹ Sơn written in Classical Chinese? CaoNgo (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Yep, "whitewashing" [2], [3], [4] --Hankiz 16:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, whitewashing the history of Vietnam. [5] [6] And you honestly don't see the irony disputing Vietnam not being Southeast Asian while linking me articles that talks about how it is quite disputed, all while Vietnamese is written in the Latin script. Perhaps once the pandemic ends, you should fly out of Germany to Vietnam and see how far you'll go writing Chữ Nôm to the locals. CaoNgo (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What's the point of showing a book about "NGỮ PHÁP PHẠN NGỮ" (Sanskrit Grammar)? I also don't think a self-published website like hahoangkiem.com can be considered a reliable source. As I said above, Vietnam is an SEA nation geographically, but an East Asian nation culturally, as the country has had longstanding cultural exchanges with China. You try to claim that China had the same impact on other SEA countries as it did on Vietnam, but I don't really see the same thing. No SEA countries except Vietnam use lunisolar calendar or celebrate holidays like Tết Nguyên Đán, Tết Trung Thu, Tết Thượng Nguyên,… (apart from its Overseas Chinese population). I couldn't found other SEA languages that have as much in common with Chinese in terms of vocabulary as Vietnamese. With the conversation going nowhere (since you keep saying that we have no clue about Vietnam just because we live abroad), I think a third opinion is the best choice us right now. Hankiz 17:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Tết Nguyên Đán, Tết Trung Thu, Tết Thượng Nguyên are just Vietnamese translations of Chinese New Year, Mid-Autumn Festival and Lantern Festival. Your claim that no other SEA countries practice them are inherently false. They are celebrated throughout SEA as well (Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, etc) not just Vietnam. CaoNgo (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
No-one is disputing "Vietnam not being Southeast Asian", that is irrelevant to this page. In no way is geography mutually exclusive with cultural influence, and different cultural influences are not mutually exclusive either. CMD (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Even outside of a geographical standpoint, I've brought up examples as to how Vietnam being in the "core sphere" does not inherently make sense both culturally and ethnically. Like Mongolia qualifies more to be here than Vietnam. CaoNgo (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
As I said, cultural influences are not mutually exclusive. CMD (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated but i just wanted to note that the lunar new year is not of han 'chinese' origin but 'chinese' influenced because the lunar new year is actually a tradition practised by the baiyue. Only confused and uncultured westerners along with chinese wumaos call it chinese new year. Before that, chinese were calling it spring new year despite it not even being spring in fhe original central plains of the han chinese, but westerners have allowed chinese to call it a chinese new year and it is now another tradition and culture stolen by china. Norewritingofhistory (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead

@Ippantekina: can we workshop the changes to the lead here? I don’t think yours are all bad but I think it needs to be a discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

For example I really like dropping the last paragraph, I think thats an excellent idea. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, may I know what do you mean by "dropping"? I'm happy and open to discussion any time :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

How did North Korea abandon the use of Chinese script while South Korea didn't?

Countries and regions using Chinese characters as a writing system:
Dark Green: Traditional Chinese used officially (Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau)
Green: Simplified Chinese used officially but traditional form is also used in publishing (Singapore, Malaysia)[1]
Light Green: Simplified Chinese used officially, traditional form in daily use is uncommon (China, Kokang and Wa State of Myanmar)
Cyan: Chinese characters are used in parallel with other scripts in respective native languages (South Korea, Japan)
Yellow: Chinese characters were once used officially, but this is now obsolete (Mongolia, North Korea, Vietnam)

At least according to this map in the article. It even conflicts with the other map over it. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Because the North Korean regime considered it reactionary (an unnecessary burden on literacy), while South Koreans are more likely to consider it historic. Anyway, in many cases, Chinese characters are now used more ornamentally than functionally in South Korea, so that the difference might not be as great as it seems... AnonMoos (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "§¬¯¾°¼¡" (in Chinese). Yazhou Zhoukan. June 2009. Retrieved 30 March 2021.

Mongolia? Southern Siberia?

I'm no expert on "East Asian Culture" but there is a connection here (at the very least ethnically) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:9B02:A846:F830:C517:FB57:82A1 (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Depends on your definition. Mongolia is indeed mentioned in the lede as a "sometimes" inclusion. Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The map needs to be replaced

Why does the map include Tibet? It may be East Asian geographically but the Tibetan people do not have the same culture as China (exclude Tibet), Korea, Vietnam, Japan, isn't the subject of this article the culture of the four regions mentioned above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:800:6294:4542:C9F3:2D61:24E0:77F0 (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns. The so-called "East Asian cultural sphere" as shown by this map indiscriminately incorporates the cultures that historically belong to that cultural sphere and the territories of the modern nations that officially use languages of the Sinosphere.
This is particularly conspicuous in the case of China. While China's modern political control over Tibet and other areas, with Mandarin as the official language, and the settling of vast numbers of Han Chinese immigrants in these territories, does mean that these areas now belong unequivocally (through imperialism) to the East Asian cultural sphere, this is not the historical situation. A more nuanced map of China is perhaps needed, one which distinguishes between the historical Chinese cultural heartland and areas that historically only belong to the East Asian cultural sphere by virtue of being part of modern China.
Something similar applies to Japan, where most of Hokkaido was traditionally Ainu and did not historically belong to the East Asian cultural sphere. These areas only became part of the East Asian cultural sphere in the 19th century.
Vietnam is trickier. The south traditionally didn't belong to the East Asian cultural sphere but has been so thoroughly integrated into it over a long period of time that it would be silly to insist on using different colouring for the area of ancient Champa (for instance). Perhaps a couple of historical maps are needed -- but that would almost certainly entail original research. Bathrobe (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Vietnamese culture belongs to East Asian cultural sphere ?

Vietnamese culture does not belong to East Asian cultural sphere or Sinosphere because culture of Vietnam is transitional culture between Indosphere and Sinosphere, only Vietnamese people who love Chinese culture think that Vietnam belongs to East Asian cultural sphere.

Culture of Vietnam has the attribute of mixing between the Indosphere, Sinosphere and Western culture (French culture).

Sinosphere only includes countries: Chinese mainland (except Tibet, Xinjiang, Guangxi and Inner Mongolia), Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Japan, North Korea and South Korea

Vietnamese culture originated from "Southeast Asian cultural sphere" (Phùng Nguyên, Đồng Đậu, Gò Mun, Đông Sơn, Sa Huỳnh) which has nothing to do with Sinosphere at all (The Phùng Nguyên, Đồng Đậu, Gò Mun, Đông Sơn, Sa Huỳnh cultures looks like to Indian culture or also likely the originating from India).

In addition, Vietnam has 100 million people but cannot find 10,000 people who know Han-Nom script (<0.1%) and Han-Nom script is no longer the official writting system of Vietnam, this is also evidence to conclude that Vietnam is not part of Sinosphere. However, there are still some Vietnamese people who have the idea of restoring the Han-Nom script.

62.14.234.232 (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

On the one hand you are saying that Vietnamese culture originated from the Southeast Asian cultural sphere. On the other you are saying it belongs to the Indosphere. And, of course, there is modern French influence. Your point seems to be that Vietnam doesn't belong to China culturally. Well, of course it doesn't.
But whatever the historical background, Vietnam still bears the heavy imprint of the Sinosphere, unlike the historical contribution from the Indosphere (whatever that may have been), which is not readily apparent today. The commonalities with Southeast Asian culture are also more "low culture" than "high culture", which is where the influences from the Sinosphere are most apparent. While Vietnam no longer uses Chinese characters, its culture, language, and religion still retain the unmistakable traces of the Sinosphere.
This is not that different from Japan and Korea, which have independent cultural roots separate from China but have been heavily influenced by the Chinese literate culture and, because of that, also belong to the East Asian cultural sphere. Belonging to the East Asian cultural sphere does not condemn a country to being an appendage of China; it is merely a result of long-term, if relatively recent cultural influence. It does not preclude different ethnic/linguistic roots or other cultural influences.
The result of being part of the East Asian cultural sphere is apparent if you look at language. Whether Vietnam uses Chinese characters or not, the commonalities with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean are immediately apparent from the dictionary, where both ancient influence from Chinese and more recent influences from Japanese (via Chinese) are quite manifest.

Bathrobe (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Change article name to Sinosphere?

"East-Asian cultural sphere" seems too vague and it's already referred to as the Sinosphere in multiple places. Orsos 0323 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"Sinosphere" could be China's zone of geographic dominance in various ways (military, economic, diplomatic etc). "East-Asian cultural sphere" has a very specific meaning which is not likely to be misinterpreted. AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with AnonMoos. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@AnonMoos Okay? Does the "Anglosphere" not imply some sort of geographic dominance as well? Your logic can also apply to the Anglosphere article yet it is still called... the anglosphere. Orsos 0323 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Before the Suez Crisis of 1956, the term "Anglosphere" might have been very ambiguous also, but that's not really the case in the 21st century. Also, the prefix "Anglo-" refers to England, which might be a little different from the political UK, but there's no such distinction with "Sinosphere". AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@AnonMoos Anglosphere is 100% ambiguous in the 21st century?? Like you yourself said, it means English but also encompasses non-English peoples, like Quebecoise in Canada, the Celtic countries in the British isles. This could also be applied to countries like Belize, which is even more ambiguous. Orsos 0323 (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, applying this logic, should the Anglosphere article be called "Northern European Cultural Sphere." It's vague and comes across wrong to most people in the West who would read it. Orsos 0323 (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
No, "Anglo-" refers to the English language. Only Ireland speaks English in northern Europe outside the UK. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@AnonMoos Sino is also linguistic though? Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese all have Chinese influence on their languages. Orsos 0323 (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
"Sino-" might be linguistic, or might refer to China in other ways. AnonMoos (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@AnonMoos Yeah... same applies to Anglo in Anglosphere. So why does the same logic not apply to both articles? Orsos 0323 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Orsos. The distinction between Sinosphere and Anglosphere or Indosphere seems to be purely arbitrary. They all refer to more than just linguistics or political influence yet the other articles exist without being referred to as South Asian cultural sphere or English cultural sphere. To be clear, the gist of my statement below is that the core content of this article is slightly different from East Asian cultural sphere, which does not encompass Vietnam fully, and rather describes areas around China that were heavily influenced by it culturally and politically. Sinosphere is the more accurate term since the common element is Chinese influence rather than geography and its avoidance is almost certainly out of political considerations rather than the content, which is less accurately described as "East Asian". Qiushufang (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
So is it possible to change it? Orsos 0323 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it should be changed, as per AnonMoos' arguments.Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@Revirvlkodlaku His arguments apply to Anglosphere too. Orsos 0323 (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Therefore we should change the Anglosphere article to something ridiculous like "British Isles Cultural Sphere" Orsos 0323 (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
To me it seems pretty clear that what this article is really talking about is all the areas with significant borrowing from Chinese civilization in terms of their cultural and political influence. That's why Vietnam is also included despite usually not being considered East Asian since it borrows more from China more other parts of Southeast Asian. Hence the above argument about Vietnam's placement in this article. The avoidance of Sinosphere in preference for East Asian cultural sphere is likely out of consideration for modern political biases, although the Sinosphere may also be that as well, rather than the contents of the article. The lead says as much. Qiushufang (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@Qiushufang "Modern political biases" is just sinophobia. Orsos 0323 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Support move per WP:COMMONNAME; as Google Ngram shows[7] "Sinosphere" has far more usage than "East Asian cultural sphere". Sutyarashi (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
However, Google searching can't tell you when the word "Sinosphere" is being used in the meaning "East Asian cultural sphere", and when it's used in a different meaning, such as the PRC's current zone of economic and political influence. Also, this is not a formal article move proposal... AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@AnonMoos Okay? Google is inherently Sinophobic and demonizes China. Orsos 0323 (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The fact that it's far easier to count occurrences of words with Google than to count the occurrences of specific meanings of words has nothing to do with China-specific topics. AnonMoos (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@AnonMoos Yet implying that Sinosphere is a bad term is deeply entwined in (often anti-Chinese) China-specific topics. It's rooted in the belief that Sinosphere countries such as Japan who have committed genocides against Chinese people don't like the term because of ethnic hatred. Orsos 0323 (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Whatever -- saying that "Sinosphere" has MORE MEANINGS than "East Asian cultural sphere" does, and therefore is potentially ambiguous, has no relationship to being pro-China, anti-China, pro-Japan, anti-Japan, or any other kind of politics. AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@AnonMoos Yeah, it's somewhat ambiguous I agree. So is the Anglosphere though?? You don't understand that I would be fine with East-Asian cultural sphere if the same logic was applied to the Anglosphere article. But big surprise, it's not. Do you really not see how this could be perceived as an anti-Chinese measure so that East-Asian Sinophobes aren't lumped into an ethnicity they hate? Orsos 0323 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
It's simply a fact that "Anglosphere" is not perfectly parallel or symmetric to "Sinsophere" in several respects. AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but no. Sinosphere is the proper article title, see Sinosphere (disambiguation). Sutyarashi (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Whether or not it's Sinophobic or if it means East Asian cultural sphere is irrelevant because this article does not cover the East Asian cultural sphere, it covers the Sinosphere. The common element is historical Chinese cultural and political influence, particularly in how the countries modeled themselves on the example of China, not a geographical category or East Asian culture. Again, that is why Vietnam is included, and why there are few examples of covering East Asian culture other than Chinese cultural influence. Qiushufang (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Support move Changing my vote on this. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a formal article move proposal -- it lacks the paperwork for that. AnonMoos (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree. @Orsos 0323 you should request move for the title change. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Pending CSD by sysop. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

East Asian cultural sphere → Sinosphere – The distinction between Sinosphere and Anglosphere or Indosphere seems to be purely arbitrary. They all refer to more than just linguistics or political influence yet the other articles exist without being referred to as South Asian cultural sphere or English cultural sphere. To be clear, the gist of my statement below is that the core content of this article is slightly different from East Asian cultural sphere, which does not encompass Vietnam fully, and rather describes areas around China that were heavily influenced by it culturally and politically. Sinosphere is the more accurate term since the common element is Chinese influence rather than geography and its avoidance is almost certainly out of political considerations rather than the content, which is less accurately described as "East Asian". Orsos 0323 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Support move per WP:COMMONNAME; as Google Ngram shows[8] "Sinosphere" has far more usage in the academic sources than "East Asian cultural sphere". Sutyarashi (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support move: The article does not describe a "East Asian cultural sphere" but the Sinosphere and says as much in the lead. Vietnam is not East Asian and the focus is on countries where there was significant cultural and political borrowing from China. Qiushufang (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support move per WP:COMMONNAME, name is used more than "East Asian cultural sphere" and Vietnam is located in Southeast Asia, but is influenced by China thus the name ("Sino"-sphere) makes more sense. Lachy70 (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support move per above arguments. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support move The Chinese name is the Chinese character sphere (汉字文化圈), and it is also the most common name throughout the whole East Asia. So the English name should be Sinophere. 梦随飞絮 (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- There's no Wikipedia policy or guideline that I'm aware of that would require consistency of the title of this article with "Anglosphere" or "Indosphere", nor do I consider such a change desirable, since "Sinosphere" is an ambiguous word, which could have modern geopolitical connotations which are not too relevant to the concept of "East Asian cultural sphere". AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    For this purpose there is already a disambiguation page. No one interested in this particular field can confuse it with China's sphere of influence. And well, Wikipedia does have a policy regarding movement of this article. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Also, it's notable that Mongolia is not considered part of East Asian cultural sphere even though it's in East Asia while Vietnam is included inspite of being geographically in South East Asia.
    Clearly the title doesn't cover all aspects of the article. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
However, none of the links on the "Sinosphere" disambiguation page discusses the PRC's sphere of diplomatic/political/military influence, so that material on that would probably be added to this article if it's renamed... AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@AnonMoos Why are you so adamant on calling out the PRC's "political and military influence"? Anglosphere ALSO has no disclaimer like that. I kind of feel you're debating in bad faith by trying to remove all references to China due to your own personal beliefs on the Chinese government. Orsos 0323 (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Whatever -- there are several reasons why "Anglosphere" is simply not perfectly parallel to "Sinosphere". You gave my previous attempts at explanation very short shrift, so I don't feel inclined to go into any greater detail now. These discussions might go more smoothly if you didn't have a chip on your shoulder. AnonMoos (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@Orsos 0323, please do not make unfounded accusations against other users—that is uncivil and will not be tolerated. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Revirvlkodlaku It's not unfounded? It's like how there's always "Chinese state media" tags on all things Chinese. Lots of countries subsidize their news outlets, yet there is still a disclaimer for China specifically. Is it so wrong to question renaming an article just so you don't mention something China related? Is it wrong to question "DISCLAIMER THIS IS NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHINA SPECIFICALLY HAS INFLUENCE ON" on one article yet no disclaimer like "THIS IS NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE UNITED KINGDOM SPECIFICALLY HAS INFLUENCED ON" on a very similar article? Orsos 0323 (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Orsos 0323, please calm down, you're starting to sound unhinged. There's absolutely nothing wrong with questioning the renaming proposal, but that is not what I warned you about; I warned you about making unfounded accusations of bad faith.Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Revirvlkodlaku "Unhinged" I won't debate further on this if you're going to paint me in that light. Orsos 0323 (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Orsos 0323 this is Wikipedia policy to always assume good faith from other editors. You've already repeatedly accused AnonMoos of having some sort of anti-Chinese sentiments without any evidence, and this may even lead to being indeffed. Please counter AnonMoos's arguments in civil manner, as they do have merit. Sutyarashi (talk) Sutyarashi (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm confused on this as well. If none of the other pages mention content that does not exist in this one why would it be added to this page? The Anglosphere =/= Sinosphere argument seems particularly baseless here, which is surprising given AnonMoos' long history, since the page already draws direct correlation between East Asian cultural sphere and Sinosphere multiple times both in the lead and the body, which would evoke WP:COMMONNAME as well as "East Asian cultural sphere" simply being a less accurate title: Vietnam, Singapore, Mongolia? Qiushufang (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand. What is the logical follow through here? Why would none of the disambiguation pages not discussing x mean x would have to be added to this page if the name is changed? Isn't it the opposite where if none of the disambiguation pages mention x then x would not have to be merged or included in the same name page? Sinosphere already links to this page while being the more WP:COMMONNAME, so I fail to see how any of this is relevant if they are being treated as synonymous. I do agree with Orsos that the Anglosphere =/= Sinosphere angle is a bad faith argument. I've already mentioned that this article does not describe an East Asian cultural sphere but also that it does not have to be a 100% match to another similar term to be used. That is not how it works, otherwise why would Indosphere and Anglosphere both exist if they both mean different things or have different focuses in their articles? Qiushufang (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose for now? - Funny that I saw this discussion as I was just starting to research about to topic for my college paper. From what I've learned, the term Sinosphere was indeed an English term created by James Matisoff to describe the regions of the Chinese linguistic and cultural influence in Southeast Asia, in order to distinguish it from Indosphere (Another term he coined to define the Southeast Asia's areas of Indian influence).
Source: https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/joseph.1/Ling611/Lx611Matisoff1990.pdf (See the footnote 17 on page 113).
The term's original definition was later somehow largely corrupted and misused to commonly define the Asian region of Chinese influence, which I am currently writing about.
My concern is that simply replacing this page's title with Sinosphere may cause the confusions and misunderstanding since the word's original definition meant by the term's author was not quite identical to what is referred by the East Asian Cultural Sphere. UofCAsian (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This page does not describe an "East Asian cultural sphere" but the Sinosphere so why would changing its name to Sinosphere cause confusion? It is not "East Asian" because Vietnam is included and the focus is on historical Chinese political and cultural influence. The two opposition statements seem to be intentionally avoiding this part of the argument. Qiushufang (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry if I was seen as intentionally avoiding the topic since I was just simply sharing the concern from what I knew.
I am also not sure if the East Asian Cultural Sphere is the best way to describe the concept , but my two cents is that Sinosphere originally meant the Chinese sphere of influence within the Southeast Asia as coined by Matsoff, so the major overhaul of the article may be needed with much more emphasis on how the term started and evolved (ex. How did the term Sinosphere change from meaning the linguistic Chinese sphere within the Southeast to East Asia and Vietnam specifically?) rather than only focusing on what cultures each country shares with China as seen in the current article. (I may be able to contribute to this if the article's name ends up changing, but I have school works for now :/).
If you look at the Anglosphere article, for example, it discusses much more about the definition, history, uses, and debate regarding the term rather than just comparing the Anglosphere countries.
That's why I said "for now". If such changes can be made to the article, then my concern is addressed. But once again, please note that I'm just shrining my opinion and I'm leaving at that. UofCAsian (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Since you are working on this topic for a paper, could you recommend some material to add to this page? Qiushufang (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I've just started, so all I have is the article I just shared. May be someday when I get done with courses. UofCAsian (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@UofCAsian there is almost zero usage of current title in the academic sources. On the other hand, Sinosphere is widely used for describing cultural influence of historic Chinese dynasties over neighbouring regions. Given that Vietnam is not in East Asia but is still included in Sinosphere, the article should be renamed. Obviously some portions would be rewritten to reflect this. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support move per WP:COMMONNAME. Like the others argued, it really should had been just 'Sinosphere' from the start, and "East Asian cultural sphere" is misleading and inaccurate here as it's not for an article based primarily on the geography. Basis of the grouping is instead only meant for labelling what regions are deeply influenced by China (Sino) for many centuries. That's it. They're not grouped together because of the geography. If geography was the basis for the term, then you should not be also adding in Vietnam (which is geographically South-east Asian) yet omitting out Mongolia and all the other countries within south east Asia. But since we are only describing what regions are deeply influenced by a dominant China for many dynasties, then Chinese cultural sphere or in Latin; (sino)sphere is the most appropriate and makes the most sense as a title.TasmaniaBridge (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
    I may be a random IP address but changing this means a big overhaul on many wiki articles as well. Since Vietnam is Sinosphere but not "East Asian" geography, then we also have the tricky issue where some articles say "East Asian religion" but they mention only Chinese-influenced regions in East Asian geography, and often exclude Vietnam, when Vietnam should be included. Hence, there needs to be some compromise where Vietnam is included into those definitions such as "East Asian religion" (should be Sinospheric religions then) as they were all influenced by Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, with Vietnamese being arguably closer to Chinese culture (tonal, "monosyllabic" languages) then Japanese and Korean (non-tonal, multisyllabic languages). 203.158.59.250 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Huh? I think you are grossly misinterpreting my comment and overcomplicating things. I am not saying that anything that is "east - Asian" must now all be called sinospheric. That's so ridiculous. I am instead saying that for many dynasties especially the Tang Dynasty, China had left a lot of cultural impact that is somewhat unique to a specific region like using chopsticks, lunar calendar, Chinese scripts, Confucius philosophy among others.[9] And this deep spread-out influence still seen deeply today, is known as a "sinosphere" or "sinic world". And given that this article is about that significant topic then I am only supporting only for this article title to be changed to sinosphere. As sinosphere means pretty much that. A region that is heavily influenced by Chinese culture. Japan’s culture is substantially derived from Tang Dynasty China. Korea’s was strongly influenced by China’s art and religion. Same holds true for Southeast Asia, Vietnam in particular. However I am nowhere suggesting to also replace the word; "east Asian" with sino in every single Wikipedia article. Nobody is suggesting that and don't know why you think I had asked that. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that people often group it up as "China, Japan, Korea", when really it should be Vietnam and China, and Japan and Korea on the side. The impact of Mongolia has been too much which shifted the definition more north whilst Vietnam is often excluded due to its Southeast Asian geography. I'm saying that if this article is renamed Sinosphere, then every other article would have to change as well. Vietnam has been taking on Chinese influence since the Han dynasty and was ruled by several Chinese dynasty. Japan only borrowed elements, whilst countries like Korea and Vietnam were at times annexed by Chinese empires. This makes Vietnam having a much higher criteria then Japan for instance, which borrowed but was never conquered by historical China which happened to Vietnam and Korea. 203.158.59.250 (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Viet User deleting?

Was looking at the economic chapter and can't find a single mention of China's economy. Then I peeked at the history log and a month ago, Vietnamese IP user 27.3.1.50 [10] removes a lot of info. Despite most of that deleted info is essential and true.  Now there's no info on China's economy anywhere in the chapter. The user had claimed there was no sources and why they deleted. Except most of it doesn't really need a source for the obviously true, like how China's economy is currently the largest in GDP PPP. Or that Korea experienced an infamous economic miracle of the han river. Nonetheless I restored it back and added in some sources.[11] TasmaniaBridge (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sinosphere does not really make any sense

I'm Japanese and I think it's wrong to classify Japan as being part of the Sinosphere.

I agree that the three countries of Vietnam, China and Korea can be considered as part of the Sinosphere due to strong cultural ties, but Japan doesn't really have unique ties to China in the sense that it has been heavily influenced by other parts of Asia and the West too, and a lot of the Chinese influences listed here are either dead or archaic (even things that are current like Kanji are increasingly considered negatively by Japanese society). VigilantAcountant (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree that Japan is somewhat different in that Japanese multisyllabic names especially standout amongst the 3 syllable Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean names. However, Japan is still part of "Sinosphere" regardless because it uses lots of Kanji and even if it stopped using Kanji, Japanese words would be Sino-Xenic anyway, like Vietnamese and Korean. 61.69.212.180 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
VigilantAcountant: Often Chinese culture came to Japan through Korea, and obviously Japanese people put their own spin on things, and were by no means slavishly imitative of China, but still many aspects of traditional Japanese culture -- writing, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc -- are due to Chinese influences. AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I think what a lot of people are overlooking is that Japan has had a lot of contact directly through South East Asia and South Asia as well, and especially through the modern era after the Cultural Revolution, Japan has maintained much closer ties with South East Asia and even South Asia. WhatIsBusan (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think contact with other areas is mutually exclusive with being a member of a given cultural area. Remsense留 04:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
But it questions why there is even a need for the idea of a sphere when multiple spheres can exist. It seems to be a case of over-generalisation without actually looking into the differences present between the countries. For example, countries such as Taiwan, Korea etc... may in fact constitute a Sinosphere. WhatIsBusan (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Saying something doesn't need to exist is not an argument. Nothing needs to exist. That's just a circular argument. Qiushufang (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Vietnamese culture is not belongs to Sinosphere

Vietnamese culture does not belong to Sinosphere because culture of Vietnam is transitional culture between Indosphere and Sinosphere, only Vietnamese people who love Chinese culture think that Vietnam belongs to Sinosphere.

Vietnamese culture has the attribute of mixing between the Indosphere, Sinosphere and Western culture (French).

In addition, Han-Nom script is no longer the official writting system of Vietnam, this is also evidence to conclude that Vietnam is not part of Sinosphere. However, there are still some Vietnamese people who have the idea of restoring the Han-Nom script.

I think Sinosphere only includes countries: Chinese, Taiwan, Japan and Korea. 27.3.1.80 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have sources that present similar definitions or perspective? I think competing/nuanced views are very important in articles like these, but we can't just go on our own synthesis of sources here, unfortunately. There are very articulate, well-supported reasons this category exists, as laid out in the article's sources, and other viewpoints need to be weighed against it. Remsense 01:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
27.3.1.80 -- As far as I know, it was the Champa who were influenced by Indic cultures much more than the Vietnamese-speakers were. Vietnamese speakers were influenced more by China than by Indic cultures. And the "Sinosphere" concept is more about historic influences than the last century or so... AnonMoos (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I think it is widely understood that Vietnam is part of Indochina which is, well, Indian and Chinese. WhatIsBusan (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, no. Indochina is a distinct term created for distinct reasons with imo much less actual cultural meaning, and includes countries that are never considered part of the Sinosphere, like Thailand. Remsense 05:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
WhatIsBusan -- Indochina is a region which was broadly influenced by both Indian and Chinese civilizations, but some parts of it were more influenced by Indian civilization (roughly those areas where the language is written with an Indic-type alphabet), while Vietnam was more influence by Chinese civilization (it transitioned from Chinese and pseudo-Chinese characters straight to the Latin alphabet)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
(Completely tangential, but each time you comment below me, it seems to remove the 留 carrying a link to my talk page from my signature, see the previous diffs—if you have no idea it's not a big deal, but if you do know I'm curious why that could be?) Remsense留 03:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
@WhatIsBusan Indochina is only the name for a region in between China and India. The name has nothing to do about the culture. Lachy70 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The same philosophy can apply to the idea of Sinosphere. It is nothing more than areas which have been affected by Chinese culture, and not inherently a sphere of influence or similar cultures. Japan in particular has very little influence from Chinese culture nowadays for example yet it is listed under the Sinosphere. It seems to be more akin to areas where Chinese characters are used more than anything. WhatIsBusan (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
This seems to be a case of WP:IDHT. Qiushufang (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
This might be a good read about established ideas on Indochina:
https://archive.org/details/houghtonmifflind00houg
I am not doubting that Vietnam and Japan have had influences from China, but why that would constitute a cultural sphere is another issue. Could you not argue that South Korea was part of the Americosphere due to the influence of American pop culture and politico-military on the country?
Maybe replacing the term "sphere" with the idea of areas/regions where Chinese culture can be found might be a good idea.
The original term in the Japanese language referred to the etymological meaning of "culture" in the Chinese characters and infers the idea of literary culture derived from regions that used Chinese characters, whereas Sinopshere in the western world has become to mean something more broad that seems to infer more hegemonic cultural influences which does not seem to be correct. WhatIsBusan (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Again, Indochina and the Sinosphere are distinct concepts created for different purposes. The "Sinosphere" is an established concept with an established definition in sources, we are not allowed to tamper with a concept because we unilaterally think it's unneeded or inadequate. This would be totally useless to people actually trying to use the encyclopedia to do research. Genuinely, if you do not find the concept compelling, you should spend time improving other articles that better reflect categories that make sense. Remsense留 11:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
All the common complaint sections share the same basic theme whether it's Vietnam or Japan or Korea. The complaint invariably circles back to not wanting to be part of a category that they consider China to be dominant in, and the arguments are based on that conception rather than what Sinosphere actually means. The premise of Sinosphere presented in their arguments is a make belief version that they have already convinced themselves of. Nothing in the article states that Sinosphere means "China dominates X country" or "modern X country's culture predominantly comes from China" yet we are arguing with the same statement over and over again. Qiushufang (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This article continues to deteriorate

The concept of the Sinosphere is based on the fact that major national cultures surrounding China were heavily influenced by Chinese models, particularly in fields like political organisation, language (esp written language and script), religion, architecture, etc. The Sinosphere doesn't refer to "national entities", which is especially problematic in the case of China, which covers cultures that are only part of the Sinosphere by virtue of being under Chinese control, e.g., Tibet or Xinjiang. Even though Tibet is part of modern-day China and has unquestionably been influenced by China throughout its history, it can't meaningfully be regarded as part of the Sinosphere as it doesn't share traditional concepts such as political organisation, written language, religion, or architecture. Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, on the other hand, adopted certain aspects of Chinese civilisation wholesale -- Chinese writing, Chinese vocabulary, Chinese philosophy, Chinese Buddhism, Chinese architecture, traditional political culture (but not necessarily modern political culture), and Chinese literature. That is not to deny the uniqueness of the Vietnamese experience, but the historical influence of China is very clear in modern Vietnam, even though Vietnam no longer uses Chinese characters. Mongolia, on the other hand, is not part of the Sinosphere, even though it has obviously been influenced by China (e.g., in the use of the Chinese zodiac). Mongolia did not adopt Chinese characters or literary Chinese. It did not adopt Chinese Buddhism or Chinese systems of political organisation.

So let's keep it cultural and stop trying to "claim" cultures or countries for China. That's not what the concept is about.

(Later edit: the Language log article at https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4306 discusses the initial use of the term Sinosphere by Matisoff, which had nothing to do with the use of hanzi, and the turn that the article took when "Sinosphere" was equated to "漢字文化圏".

Bathrobe (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you're starting out with an assumption that this is somehow inherently a game of possession and territorial stakes, which is nonsense. It's somewhat obtuse to draw that thick a line between "national entities" and "civilizations" or "cultures", they are concepts which influence each other.
What, specifically, do you take umbrage with in the article? It hardly mentions Tibet or Xinjiang at all, would you prefer it mention them not at all? Remsense留 20:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
On the contrary, I'm critical of the tendency to see this as inherently a game of possession. Why are you objecting? The Sinosphere is partly a cultural, partly a political concept. But the reason the article (and the map) is such a mess is that some people are pushing, while others object to, the concept for nationalistic reasons.
Bathrobe (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we really disagree on much, sorry if I was overly suspicious coming out of the gate—the POV pushing you describe mutuall breeds suspicion, I suppose. Regarding the map specifically: I'm curious if you have any specific ideas as to what to do with it? I can edit SVG and can whip up anything that anyone requests. Remsense留 21:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
To explain further:
I'm aware that the concept of the Sinosphere is easy on the surface but difficult to resolve if you try to define or describe it further. It's not as straightforward, objective, or factual as it appears. Membership is conventionally confined to advanced literate cultures in powerful, modern, independent polities, like Japan, Korea, China, and Vietnam. It doesn't usually include the ethnicities of Southwest China that use Chinese characters, such as Old Zhuang script / Sawndip, because the Zhuang aren't a powerful, independent, modern polity; they are simply "a part of China", a small dependent ethnicity. Not worth considering on the same plane.
I suspect that the concept is, in part, a child of Asian nationalism reacting to Western colonialism. Why were some literate Japanese so keen to declare their membership of a shared cultural zone, even as the general trend in Japan from Meiji on was to wholeheartedly embrace Western technology and culture? Were they pushing back against the "European cultural zone" that had attained such global preeminence, by putting forward an equally valid "East Asian" cultural sphere comprising the dominant cultures of East Asia? Not to mention the infamous East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. (I don't have sources to back this up. I'm not sure there is much postmodern research that attempts to deconstruct the concept. But any dispassionate appraisal of the concept of the Sinosphere surely has to take this into account).
To turn to the map: I think it's difficult. You could create a map showing traditional "Sinosphere" territories (say, the 18 provinces of China, Japan excluding most of Hokkaido (only in the "Sinosphere" since it was settled by Japanese settlers in the 19th century), most of Vietnam (but maybe excluding the south?, which was only gradually conquered). But any map of this kind would involve some kind of "original research", which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Bathrobe (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding on what the terminology used by the Japanese is. There were referring to the sphere of Sinic culture based on literary art - think about the etymological origins of the Chinese word for culture. It is similar to the idea of Islamic sphere or Islamic world. That does not mean that a country that has been influenced by Sinic culture is exclusively part of the Sinosphere, or that it has been dominated by Sinic culture. WhatIsBusan (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the premise of the complaint here. Tibet and Xinjiang are barely mentioned if at all. Qiushufang (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm talking about the oversimplifying map, which identifies all of China as belonging to the Sinosphere. This is inaccurate since the territory of modern China does not uniformly belong to the traditional Sinosphere.
I am equally talking about those pushing the viewpoint that Vietnam doesn't belong to the Sinosphere. (One comment even mentions Champa.) There is plenty of scholarship to show that the dominant culture of modern Vietnam has been heavily influenced by China (e.g., Vietnam and the Chinese Model by Alexander Woodside).
Bathrobe (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I am also responding to casual attempts by some editors to include Mongolia within the Sinosphere. I don't have access to the references given for these edits, but snippets in Google books taken from the pages cited don't seem to lend support to the idea that Mongolia can be considered part of a cultural "Sinosphere" in the sense that the entry is discussing. There is no denying the fact that Mongolia has historically been strongly tied to East Asia, that there has been Chinese cultural influence on the Mongols, and even that some important items of Mongolian culture, such as the Secret History of the Mongols, were written using Chinese characters for their phonetic value, but this is different from the far-reaching adoption of Chinese culture in all its aspects by Korea, Japan, and Vietnam.
Such edits seem designed to expand the Sinosphere to its largest possible extent, rather than providing a meaningful characterisation of the Sinosphere. Bathrobe (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
What about removing the map and replacing it with one of the text/character comparisons included in the body? That removes the potential anachronisms that might come out of any modern map, and provides an instant and clear example of the historical/cultural relationships. CMD (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. Qiushufang (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the infobox map is fine. It shows the modern countries where the predominant culture is descended from a sinospheric influence, not that everybody within it practices the dominant culture. If we get into historical geographical details, then wouldn't Xinjiang/Central Asia/Mongolia also be defined as once sinospheric areas due to the Liao dynasty and Western Liao? They used Chinese influenced characters. To me the map is just a simplification of what modern countries' dominant cultures are considered part of the sinosphere. Qiushufang (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that in Vietnam and Japan the predominant culture is not Sinic. In fact there are very few Sinic influences in modern-day Japan. WhatIsBusan (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Sinosphere does not describe just modern culture, so the point is moot. Someone already explained that above. And the point is arguably not true either. Around 60% of Japanese vocabulary in dictionaries is derived from Chinese called Sino-Japanese vocabulary. This is not to mention architecture, religion, dress, technology, and art, all of which have heavy Chinese influences.Qiushufang (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that architecture, religion, dress, technology and art in Japan have multiple sources and much (if not most) of it does not derive from China. For example there is very little influence of Confucianism in modern day Japanese society, and utterly no influence of Taoism. The only major hegemonic influence of China on Japan has been literary.
And this also gets into to whom many of these influences should be attributed to considering Japan has maintained close contact with both South East Asia and South Asia for the past several centuries. For example should cultural attributes that originated in China but arrived through Korea be attributed to the Sinosphere or the Hangusphere?
The original meaning of the term that is used Japanese is more close to the etymological meaning of the term "culture" in Chinese writing which refers to writing (文) more emphatically that the broader concept used in the West. It's literally referring to the idea of there being arts that can be groups together for the purpose of study in a single field (for example you can group a poem under poetry or sinic texts). WhatIsBusan (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
You are operating based on your own definition of what the "Sinosphere" is, not the one we are using or the one the article is about. No one is going to be able to adequately converse with you until you start making points based on what the article actually says. Remsense留 11:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
What is your definition of Sinosphere though?
As I said the original meaning of the term that is used Japanese is more close to the etymological meaning of the term "culture" in Chinese writing which refers to writing (文) more emphatically that the broader concept used in the West. It's literally referring to the idea of there being arts that can be groups together for the purpose of study in a single field (for example you can group a poem under poetry or sinic texts). WhatIsBusan (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The one attested by all the sources under the article that understand 'culture' in a particular, perhaps problematic sense. I don't get to decide what 'Sinosphere' has meant to English speakers—if it means something distinct in another language, that could be worth writing in a section in the article about. Remsense留 11:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Propose to use "Sinitic" instead of "East Asian" because of people (mis)using geography to exclude Vietnam from the Sinosphere

As this article was recently moved from "East Asian cultural sphere" to "Sinosphere" I'd like to raise attention to an issue I've noticed across articles about this topic, namely that people keep removing Vietnam from articles related to shared cultural practices from across the Sinosphere, the motivations for this can include Vietnamese nationalists who dislike China (a similar breed exists in Korea who make the same arguments), to geographic absolutists saying "Vietnam is Southeast Asian" and "Vietnam doesn't have an East Asian character".

I've noticed an odd trend when working with these articles and that is that geography is misused to try to exclude Vietnam from any topics related to the Sinosphere. In this version of the article on Sinitic seals one can clearly see that the seal culture of Vietnam which is identical with that of China, Japan, and Korea is regarded as "less important" in Vietnam and Vietnamese history. In fact, for years the Philippines was placed above Vietnam and had detailed information about a completely unrelated seal culture while dismissing their usage in Vietnam. The way the article is currently written also suggests that when the French arrived these seals just disappeared and that Vietnam's current seal culture is somehow different from that in the People's Republic of China. None of which are true, currently the traditional seal is still used as a personal seal in Vietnam in exactly the same way as it is being used in Mainland China, likewise the claim "Government seals in the People's Republic of China today are usually circular in shape, and have a five-pointed star in the centre of the circle. The name of the governmental institution is arranged around the star in a semicircle – a form also adopted by some company chops." also fully applies to Vietnam, though government seals typically use the emblem of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while companies use their name, not too dissimilar from Chinese government seals. This doesn't just apply to this particular case, it also applies elsewhere as Vietnam is often excluded from "East Asian" topics because Vietnam is "Not East Asian". This often leads to many articles about topics which are identical in Vietnamese culture to those found in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean cultures to be excluded, see examples, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Copying from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lachy70&oldid=1157388933

== "Vietnam is not East Asian" ==

I don't know who else to consult, I saw you revert some of their POV edits in 2022 but I'm not sure who else actually cares about this. I noticed that a lot of articles about the Sinosphere seem to exclude Vietnam but I didn't know why this was or why information of Vietnam always seemed to be missing from these articles. I thought that this was the co-ordinated effort of lots of Sinophobic / Missinitic (however you call "anti-Chinese") Vietnamese nationalists but looking over the editing history of some of these articles I can see that it's often a single person that is to blame:

At this point it becomes clear to me that they envision a geographical East Asian cultural sphere from which Vietnam must be excluded.

Whatever their motivations for doing so, this is clearly pushing a POV, a POV which very much tries to erase Vietnam from the Sinosphere purely because it is not geographically in "East Asia". I am not sure how active you are with these articles, but it seems like this person went out of their way to remove content about Vietnam even when the article wasn't explicitly about East Asia. This isn't unique to the English-language Wikipedia either, I often see this at the Mandarin-language Wikipedia too, but I didn't realise that this was all basically done by one person here. --Donald Trung (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, his reasoning for removal of content do not justify his actions. He is clearly pushing a POV. Most of his removals claim that Vietnamese is irreverent to Sinosphere even though many sources have stated that Vietnam has tremendous Chinese cultural influence.
I am not particular active on some of these articles, but I did try to revert most of his changes when applicable. Lachy70 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Their argument is that historical Chinese influence in Vietnam is "irrelevant" because of geography, but they themselves define this geography which is clearly vandalism, unfortunately I am not allowed to report vandalism so I often see vandals on my watchlist that I can't do anything about.
Anyhow, I saw the amazing articles you wrote about those books about Vietnamese culture, I am looking forward to see more of your creations in the future. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

END QUOTE.

Copied the entire thing for context.

Academics have also adopted another approach, rather than describing "Chinese" influence they will use "Sinitic" influence (this article uses "Sinic" but I haven't personally encountered that claim yet). From an entitled “Academic Dependency Theory and the Politics of Agency in Area Studies: The Case of Anglophone Vietnamese Studies from the 1960s to the 2010s,” the article was written by Chang Yufen of National Taipei University and it looks at English-language scholarship on premodern Vietnamese history from the perspective of academic dependency theory.

This paper uses terms like "Literary Sinitic" to refer to "Literary Chinese" due to the perception of using "Chinese" in this regard and it's to differentiate historical Chinese influence from modern China. Judging from the above, would it be wise to replace the geographically misleading term "East Asian" to refer to the Sinosphere with "Sinitic"? --Donald Trung (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to add to the above that they are not the only user doing that, user "Laska666" (a Champa nationalist) wrote a large number of articles and content expansions that tried to minimise Chinese influence in Vietnam and deliberately tried to remove references to Chinese influence in Vietnam. The motivations of these people are very wide and diverse, but the result is the same, Vietnam is seen as "the other". Another great example is this rant on this very talk page. The talking points from this diatribe are also found in Korean nationalist historiography, particularly North Korean historiography.
TL;DR: I am proposing to change "East Asian" to "Sinitic" in related articles because people keep misusing "East Asian" to exclude Vietnam, even if "East Asia and Vietnam" was being used. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I am for this change although it will likely raise concerns similar to the ones here over the name change. To a laymen's eyes, the difference between Sinitic, Sinosphere or any of the other words with the Sin- prefix may be moot. I am sure they are aware of what was meant in the first place when they erased Vietnam from the "East Asian+" category and will do the same even more so with the Sinitic label. Qiushufang (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
It seems like little momentum arose from this proposal. I agree with it, and I'll be trying to get momentum for change on other pages. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinosphere/Archive_2&oldid=1264646834"