Talk:Southeast Asia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Earlier questions

Who includes Taiwan and Hainan in SE Asia? Cite? --Jiang 03:09, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Asia + scooters = SE?

Vietnam has just conquered Hainan and Taiwan :P __earth 03:35, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, if you look onto the map, Cambodia is part of mainland Southeast Asia. And Malaysia is both part of the mainland, and part of the archipelago. --Dara 03:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True. Maybe we should add a note or two on that. __earth 03:35, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't Cambodia be listed under mainland?

Yup, yup. Purely a mistake ;)__earth 02:07, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Somebody should expand the section on flora, or merge the section with fauna. A.K.R. 7 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Somebody should verify changes made by User:68.91.113.252, who has a recent history of vandalism. For one thing, 95% Christianity in Bali seems suspect, considering the next paragraph states Hinduism is dominant.

I think you misread his/her edit. He/she added 95% Christianity in East Timor, not Bali. __earth 12:43, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry for wasting anybody's time.

It's not a problem __earth 01:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Culture

We totally need to rework the Culture section. The current version's paragraphs and sentences seem to be too disconnected with one another and the transition is not as smooth as it should be, at least starting from the 5th paragraph till "peranakan". __earth 07:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The article on Brunei is currently listed to be improved on Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. You can support the nomination with your vote there. --Fenice 06:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Southeast or South East?

I've seen both versions of the spelling in different articles. I think I've seen South-East as well.. Not being a native english speaker, I'm not sure which is preferable, or if they're all acceptable, but I find he lack of consistenct annoying. Could anyone give me directions on the subject? MMad 23:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that pretty much sums it up. :) I don't think there's a preference, though I'm sure Google will yield a preference for one or the other. Personally, I prefer southeast (on par with other cardinal descriptors) or southeastern (q.v., Eastern Europe, for which one rarely sees "East Europe", etc.) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If we will be strict with our English formation, then South-East is the accurate and correct way of referring to a combined direction. Both South and East are proper (directional) nouns and as such must be capitalized. Combining the two, it must be South-East not Southeast. That is what's being taught in schools and universities. However, the media, the advertising medium, writers (or should I say copywriters) wrote it as Southeast, and being as the one with the most reach in terms of readership and viewership (especially the advent of the Internet and particularly blogs), Southeast has become the common-public way of combining two proper nouns. A wrong of writing Southeast but due to popular usage of the people-at-large, it has become correct. South-East is still the proper way of writing it however. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 10:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Compact Oxford English dictionary gives south-east, but the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and the American Heritage Dictionary all give southeast. The directional words here act as adjectives, not proper nouns, and aren't capitalised when used outside context of an established name, according to Swan's Practical English Usage. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 11:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. In any case, I am only pulling from what we were taught here in the Philippines during my school years (1988-1998). Thanks for the information! --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 13:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese population of the Philippines

Was just wondering, how come the Chinese population of the Philippines stated here is different from what was stated in the Philippines and Overseas Chinese page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.55.57 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive

The article History of Southeast Asia is currently a candidate for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the nomination with your vote there. __earth ^(Talk) 08:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Overseas Chinese!?

Hi! Can we have a discussion for a near accurate population of the Chinese people in Southeast Asia and can we define who to consider"Chinese". The figures seem inconsistent. Thank you! - 23prootie 15 June 2006 (UTC)

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo 2 aLL mAriSiaNs... 1. Wala dito ung ibat - ibang lahi sa asya, kung meron man, kayo na maghanap :p 2. Add niyo ako sa yahoo messenger - janineang9 - 3. Kung may comment about sa gi post ko.. wala lang..! 06/22/06; 5:04pm xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo

Language section

Should this section have some wikilinks? JPD (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)no hoe ass dick shoud be ni there

Southeast Asia Population vs. India Population

Southeast Asia's landmass is approximately the same as India's landmass. Why is India's population is so much bigger than the whole population of Southeast Asia? Sonic99 02:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because Southeast Asian land mass isn't continuous, which impedes migration? __earth ^(Talk) 07:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture removals

I've removed non-free copyrighted pictures from this article on more than one occasion, as they are being used on Wikipedia under fair-use provisions which do not permit their use in this article. Please do not add non-free pictures to this article. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs improvement

It's entirely too convoluted an article considering an area so vast and full of diverse cultures. This has led to vast generalizations which will mislead people who read the article. Why not keep it as simple as the East Asia page? (Unsigned comment by 13:25, 19 January 2007 (edit) User:Muaddib }

Any suggestions? --23prootie 14:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article absolutely needs copyediting, but not hiding the content. How about transforming the statistics into table or even graphs. That's what I feel cluttering this article. However, if I compare this article with East Asia, then this is better. This article has a good content of Geography, Culture, Religion, etc.. — Indon (reply) — 14:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion Breakdown

The figures in the religious percentages humbly claim they might be outdated and/or estimates, but upon what basis might they be altered? For example, the Vietnam main article does not link to a source but does list 80.8% of Vietnamese as subscribing to no religion, as of a 1999 census. Is this credible? How should the difference in these two pages be reconciled? Muaddib 05:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Distinct minorities"

What is the intent of this section? "Distinct Minorities"? According to the table above, most groups are minorities. What is special about the four mentioned? We can't just have a sample, and we can't mention all. Rather, a general comment (if there is one) needs to made about minorities in South East Asia. Merbabu 01:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Appallingly referenced

The current version of this article is very poorly referenced. Only a few minor points have any citations to reliable sources. If we were to apply WP:RS to this article, most of it could be removed. Merbabu 01:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wildlife

It's amazing that Southeast asia contains all of the world's 3 finest and most charismatic animals:

http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/mammals/Bos_frontalis/Bos_frontalis_00.html

And the wild water buffalo: http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/mammals/Bubalus_bubalis/Bubalus_bubalis_01.html?movietype=wmMed

Recent changes

Just a heads-up about a string of recent changes by Jps57 that redefine the term somewhat. Jps57, please use the edit summary to explain rationale for changes when you make changes like this. Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indianised kingdoms in Southeast Asia

Aren't most parts of Indochina (Thailand, Burma, Laos and Cambodia) Indianised kingdoms as well? I mean if you see the fanged deities that guard the palace and temple gates, as well as the Ramayana epic that's prevalent and very popular within those nations - wouldn't that be Hindu Indian influence as well? --121.218.215.16 (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Islam is not the second largest religion in Indochina

Because with just only 7 million Christians in Vietnam was more larger than the total Muslim population in whole Indochina (exclusive Malaysia and Singapore; only mainland countries as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Burma). Now let's see:

Country	Christian	Muslim
Vietnam	7 million (8%)	65,000 (0.08%)
Cambodia	350,000 (2%)	500,000 (3%)
Laos	100,000 (1.5%)	400 (very tiny)
Thailand	500,000 (0.75%)	3 million (4.6%)
Burma	>2 million (>4%)	1,9 million (4%)
Total	10 million	5.6 million

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

West Malaysia? It's part of the mainland. Anyway, what's your point? You are saying Islam is not the second largest religion, then you say it is. --Hamster X (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Population chart

Will this pie chart I made help out?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Southeast_Asia.JPG Brutannica (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Largest cities

The population between Manila and Jakarta's metro area is debatable. Mega Manila's metro area can exceed that of Jabodetabek making it the largest metro area in South East Asia. Manila only listed the cities the composes Metro Manila. Major urban areas have been formed outside of Metro Manila especially within the provinces of Bulacan, Pampanga, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna and Batangas. Thus the change. Themanilaxperience (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Time to change to "Asean"

I think it is time that we change from "South-East Asia" to "Asean" when referring to the region. No matter how and where we look at it, "South-East Asia" IS "Asean". I write "Asean" with only one capital letter to denote the region itself as opposed to "ASEAN" which obviously refers to the political organization. I'm sure Timor-Leste will be raised, if we consider other aspects of "ASEAN" and "Asean", Timor-Leste is active in more than one. There is the SEA Games for example (which has been proposed to be changed to Asean Games by the way). South-East Asia as a region now have a proper name, and that is "Asean". And this is coming from someone who considers himself an Asean Citizen. Just my suggestion. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 10:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think so. Even if the EU expanded to include all the countries of Europe, I doubt we would collectively refer to them as such. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 11:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ASEAN is a specific legal entity. Southeast Asia is a geographic grouping. What's next, renaming Europe the European Union. Earth the United Nations? --Merbabu (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As a reply to both comments above: It's mostly based on how Asean is used in recent years vs. ASEAN. Locally and regionally, the region was and is referred to as Asean instead of South-East Asia (outside of the ASEAN being a legal entity). The usage is also growing, although I wouldn't say by the millions (otherwise this discussion won't exist at all), especially with the on-going and upcoming projects related to our ASEAN Charter's Socio-Cultural Community/integration. I am not saying that South-East Asia has been totally replaced when referring to our region. But it's here, happening. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't do that. Merbabu is right. Besides, not all SEA countries are member states of ASEAN. Timor Leste is not officially part of the grouping ATM. __earth ^(Talk) 01:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryu Kyu

Aren't the Ryu Kyu archipelago part of SE Asia in some definitions? 76.66.202.139 (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Origin of "Southeast Asia"

I think it should be mentioned that the grouping and naming of SE Asia as SE Asia is a relatively new thing. Having been done in WWII by Allied military commanders. That is the region was not regularly called Southeast Asia or formally called that until then. In fact, I don't think anyone called it that before then. Also, should the main article discuss WWII and afterward as this is when most nations gained their independence? Rshuflin (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have solid references for the earliest use of the term, feel free to add the info. I don't think this is the place to add a bunch of information on WWII, though--leave that for WWII pages (imho).Rikyu (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What Rshuflin said is true. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia is one of prominent popular publications that states this fact. The fact is indeed important in understanding how the political Southeast Asia was first recognized and indeed the region was first concretely grouped together as Southeast Asia during WWII. Previous, it was either identified as the Far East or an extension of India. The identification however was problematic. I have the book. Unfortunately, time is not on my side. Nevertheless, I will try to insert the information complete with citation once I found some time to do so. __earth ^(Talk) 07:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It use to be called the East Indies.99.35.235.49 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)