Talk:Asia/Archive 2

Cultures of the World
Would you consider contributing? Or how about voting for it as collaboration of the week for this new but important article.--Culturesoftheworld 19:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits by DLinth, User:24.161.41.93, User:4.155.87.40, User:61.59.83.208, User:169.253.4.21 and User:4.155.250.113
I have to say that I find the edits on articles relating to Asia, Europe, Eurasia and Countries in both Asia and Europe to be lacking in NPOV. They strike me as much more prescriptive, dogmatic and normative than what is reasonable for a contentious or debatable topic like this. These users leave no room for alternative views with phrases such as "unsupportable delineations", "must necessarily", "by some undefined path", "now accepted worldwide", "the experts concur" and "side being ill-defined". And the recent edit displays sources smack in the middle of the text and not placed along with the other sources provided. Also, the namedropping of places like Morocco and New Zealand seems utterly out-of-place and irrelevant to the Caucasus-Urals dividing line. Unless something better is produced, either by DLinth or another user, I will revert to a more acceptable version and we can move on from there. Please discuss! :] //Big Adamsky 19:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes; these repeated POV edits are irksome. E Pluribus Anthony 23:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Asia/Asian
Let clear this. Historically, ancient European considered that Europe and Asia are separate "continent" in term of physical geography. We are no longer live in medieval era when people thought that the earth is flat. And Europe=continent isn't kosher in term of this definition. The current geography shifted the definition to political, cultural, historical category. However, to define "continent" in term of human geography, i.e. socio, political, historical identity, is problematic in term of linguistic because continent is a geological term. The correct linguistic usage is "region" rather than "continent". At least, in Japan, that is how Europe is refere to. But let say we go along with the definition used in (Western) human geography, and call Europe as a continent. Fine. But then this cause a problem if we apply it to "Asia". There is nothing to definie "Asia" in term of ethinic, sociological, political, historical identity. Some stated in this page that the current geography subcategorise Asia into East (Orient), South (British India), Central (Stans) and West Asia (Arabia/Presia?) but this isn't a definite solution unless each "region" is proclaimed as a continent to have consistency with Europe's status as "continent". Plus, human geography do inded treat each region as distinct, implicitly confering the definition of cotinent. Most modern geography book do mention (dodge) this problem and always state that Asia/Europe is a conventional or historical term. Moreover, confusion already exist in term of linguistic usage of "Asian" in various European language and different version of English. Because a category imply homogenity, which isn't a case here, "Asian" always refer to a subcategory of "Asia". I'm not going to push this as a nuetral POV however, to delete any edit which state this "POV" is a violation of NPOV policy when it is presented as a "view". And it is obvious that this will become a PC issue so censorship is pointless and reactionary. It is merely delaying the inevitable. FWBOarticle 10:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What about the capitals?
In the table with the name, flag, population, etc. of each asian country, the capitals are missing.

The same table is included under "Europe", "Africa", "North America" and "South America" but showing the corresponding capitals, which is very useful info.

Jmried


 * Hi! I created the other tables and, don't worry, I'm working on ones for Asia and (for lack of better term) Oceania.  I'll have these up in the next few days.  Stay tuned! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Tada! I've recently added a table of Asian countries and territories.  I hope it is useful.


 * As well while sources vary, the UN scheme for geographic subregions – which is used for all other continental tables in Wp – places Iran in the region of Southern Asia (see here for the actual classification and entries). This does not deny that it is in the Middle East or elsewhere but merely exhibits a systematic way of organising all territories in Wp.  Please bear this in mind before insinuating edits or moving territories in the table (which will be edited or reverted judiciously).  Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry

I don't want to continue this, you as a wikipedia administrator should decide, i am sorry


 * Well, ugly and uncivilized or not, the UN does place Iran in a cluster of states it refers to as Southern Asia ( not South Asia). Many others (including myself) would call Iran a Middle Eastern state, although not its "heart". (Btw applauds to EPA for his legwork!) //Big Adamsky 00:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is correct anon. Iran is a cultural kin to Iraq.  They are not part of the subcontinent.  Hats off to such a cogent and bold assertion.--Dark Tea

how long's this thing been tagged for cleanup?
the tag looks bad. let's take it off unless someone knows why it was tagged in the first place. OscarMeyerPeener. 02:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've nixed the tag. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Regions
It seems like the text under regions is somewhat redundant with the table. Maybe the info could be consolidated somehow. Maurreen 02:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As the originator of tables for each of the continental/regional articles, I agree ... and Wikipedians have said just as well with the other continents/tables (e.g., Oceania and Africa). However, I've been somewhat reluctant to nix the list since it contains some details – particularly regarding political status – that, if carried into the tables, would likely overload them.  Perhaps I should merely add a column to the tables and/or replace the population density column (which is arguably neither here nor there) with the information? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pending a groundswell of opposition, I've since nixed the redundant list of territories which is essentially duplicated in the table; I've not detailed the political status of the various territories in the table but might later. Of course, the article (and similar continental/regional articles) can stand for some reorganisation (e.g., re-ordering of sxns) for consistency.  There you go!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. To avoid losing all the info in the list completely, I copied the entire section to the geography article.
 * Also, I hate to be difficult, but now the table is overlapping the images. Does anyone else see that, or is it just me? Maurreen 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for moving the information to the subarticle; makes sense. I think the list can be pruned or brought inline with the content in the table somehow, though.


 * As well, I'm not experiencing the overlap you are; this arrangement is also repeated in the Africa article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Entry on Jammu & Kashmir deleted
See talk on Talk:South_Asia gunslotsofguns 09:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nakhichevan as a separate entity
Hi. Why is the autonomous republic of Nakhichevan listed as an entity separate from Azerbaijan in the table? The republic is an integral part of Azerbaijan, in the same way that, say, Chechnya or Mari El are republics of Russia. For this reason, it should not be listed separately. Ronline ✉ 12:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello! It's listed separately because it's an exclave (separate from the bulk of Azerbaijan), which is clearly stated in the relevant note, not out of any implication of sovereignty. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't say it's particularly clearly stated, since it first states that Azerbaijan is a transcontinental country, etc. Also, even if it's an exclave, what's the point of listing it separately? Both Azerbaijan proper and Nakhichevan are partially in Asia, so I don't see the point of listing them partially. Or is Nakhichevan totally in Asia, or significantly different in geography to Azerbaijan? [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that Nakhichevan is a sizeable exclave, I'm unsure what the challenge is here. And if you really wanted to split hairs: in toto, the country is a transcontinental one.  Azerbaijan proper is in the Caucasus (region), straddling the Caucasus Mountains, and arguably is in both Europe and Asia;  Nakhichevan (south of Armenia) is solely in the Transcaucasus and (just) in Asia.  And for more clarity, which I think is unnecessary, anyone can edit the note.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Nakhichevan is an exclave and the footnote does note it. But should exclaves of a country that are in the same continent as the mother country have their own listings?  East Timor has an exclave on the west side of Timor Island, but it's not listed.  And in the "North America" wiki entry Alaska does not have a separate listing even though it's an exclave like Nakhichevan.Inkan1969 13:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Might as well give Warzistan, Palestine and Tibet and all other notable autonomous regions entries if you're going to push it like that.Therequiembellishere 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I agree: there is no reason to list this exclave separately unless we do so for other countries too, and I think that could get messy.  Unless someone (else) objects, I will consolidate the two entries for Azerbaijan into a single one.  Quizatz Haderach 02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Territories and regions
I think this should be fixed. Under the table of countries for "Asia", there is a catagory of "Eastern Europe". As if this isn't wrong enough, Russia (the one country for this catagory) has only statistics for Asia. So, under the catagory of "Eastern Europe" there are statistics not for Eastern Europe, but Asia.

Same thing with "Northern Africa"Ajnosek 17:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, Russia is now under Northern Asia and Egypt is now part of Western Asia

Cyprus belongs to Europe
Like all other islands in the Mediterranean, Cyprus belongs to Europe, not Asia.
 * See the UN map in the references below the table. Also not all Mediterranean islands are geographicaly european... Armenia and Cyprus are mentioned in the notes as "sociopoliticaly connected with Europe", but because they don't have european TERRITORY - their stats are included in the Asia table, not the Europe table... Alinor 14:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See also discussions on the Europe talk page and multiple other wikipedia discussion pages...

Well I am attending high school world geography and Cyprus is part of Asia in our textbooks. Egypt however is not, but I'll save that for its proper category. It would also make since that it is Asian since Turkey(Anatolia only), is part of Asia and the Anatolia peninsula goes further west than Cyprus. By the way, I may just be a high school student but I'm a smart, straight A student and I think that my argument is legitimate.

Total Density
Someone help! I added East Timor w/ a population desity of 69 people per km² and i dont know how to average it all up for the density. I've already added the population and area to the totals so you don't have to worry about that, but will somebody help do the density?71.99.110.7 08:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

japanese or chinese word for asia
we have the etymology of the word used in European language, but what word is used for the continent in the major Asian languages like Chinese or Japanese and their etymologies?--Sonjaaa 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "Asia" is somewhat of a European concept, thought to differ from Europe somewhat as a unity. In Asia, there doesn't seem to be any traditional ideas of "Asia" as a unity, and the word is often borrowed from European languages, as in Japanese and Korean. Please expand my answer as you see fit. 惑乱 分からん 10:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

asia
what is the head of government
 * Eh? Asia doesn't have a single government. Every state has its own government. Some of the most powerful states in Asia probably include China, India, Russia and Japan (in no particular order). 惑乱 分からん 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Shinto: Mythology or Religion?
Shinto and its offshoot Oomoto are both listed under Mythologies, while Shinto is listed again under Religions. Shouldn't Oomoto be moved under Shinto in Religions, and Shinto be deleted from Mythologies?

demonymy
The title is in fact better than "Asian people" since the section doesn't deal with ethnography but with terminology. I tried "'Asian' as a demonym", hoping it sounds less 'scary', a title that perfectly describes the section's content. dab (ᛏ) 13:21, 3 October dedicated to Ms. Roberson-Brown & Ms. Brooks

Egypt
Eypt is in Africa, not Asia.
 * Not all of it - Sinai is considered to be geographically in Asia. -- Howard  the   Duck  09:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course Egypt is not in Asia. You are correct anonymous signer.--Dark Tea  12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No he is not correct user, the Siani Peninsula is geographically in Asia.Therequiembellishere 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Even as the Sinai peninsula is in Asia Egypt is an african nation check the Egpyt page. It clearly defines it as a northern african state. It should be removed. I'm contesting this bec the citation is obscure.  Prove that there is enough political motivation and references that Egypt is indeed considered a transcontinental nation. Same goes with Cyprus this shuold be deleted as I can see no text books including cyprus in most Asian History texts -- –   Daimengrui  talk  20:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In the textbook that I study about world geography, it says nothing about Sinai being part of Asia. I can believe that though and if it is, it should not be removed because even though its the minority of the country in Egypt, Russia and Turkey are not completely Asian either. However, since only the Sinai peninsula is part of Asia geographically, it should not have a "North Africa " section and should instead be on the list with "West Asia".

Iran
I am going to change the category Iran has been put in. Iran is considered to be In the UN's Greater South Asia. Anyways that are is called Indian Subcontinent and Iranians are not Indians. But Iran is in Southwest Asia/western Asia. Many books, people and the United Nations say this. Wikilo12 02:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously why is Iran in South Asia when it is completely in the middle east. Wikilo12 02:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have moved it back: the UN scheme for countries/regions, which is used for other continent articles (e.g., Europe), clearly places Iran in Southern Asia, not Western Asia ... though I acknowledge this is rather common. Moreover, note that South(ern) Asia, Indian subcontinent, West(ern) Asia, and Middle East are not synonymous. Psychlopaedist 19:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For one, the Middle East is part of Asia. 74.38.35.171 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is comepletely right. The Middle East is not part of Asia.  Please register an account on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark Tichondrias (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
 * The Middle East IS part of Asia, the Continent. I've never heard of a continent called "The Middle East". A region called the Middle East, sure, but not a continent. Should we have the article discuss "Asia the Continent" versus "Asia the Region", the latter of which seems more coincident with Asia-Pacific (AP) (often but not always excluding Australasia) and not Asia the Continent? 74.38.35.171 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I learned that iran was in Southern Asia.Therequiembellishere 19:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus
Why is Cyprus being removed from the article? I don't see any explanation. -Will Beback · † · 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's probably being moved due to wilful/ignorant European inclusionism, I gather. Psychlopaedist 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect listing on Russian Population and Area
Currently Russia is listed as having 39,129,729 number of people, that's too little. As for land size it is listed as 13,115,200 km2. According to CIA world factbook, as of July 2006, the population estimate is 142,893,540 and land size is, total: 17,075,200 km2, land: 16,995,800 km2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.58.1.6 (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
 * The area and population refers to Asian territory, that is presumably Russia east of the Urals. -- Howard  the   Duck  09:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes/always Asia map
Was that ridiculous map decided upon, or is it vandalism? | A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 14:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know. I have reverted this and the parallel changes to the table below.  The editor who introduced these substantial changes to the article did so without any sort of discussion/consensus and has tried to do it before, sometimes anonymously (from what I can tell). Corticopia 05:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have cited these viewpoints from credible sources, so Neutral point of view demands their points of view be heard.--Dark Tea 11:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you check past discussions, multiple anons have agreed with me. Your arguments that this article should only present one point of view are the minority.--Dark Tea  12:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just encouraged the anonymous posters User:74.38.35.171, User:213.221.46.242, User:80.111.191.155 and User:74.38.35.171 who agree with me to register accounts with the hope that this article will express the ideals of WikiProject Countering systemic bias.  These anons express the following views (not all from the same person): the Middle East to not be part of Asia, Iran is not part of the subcontinent and Asia is a European construct without global recognition.  Hopefully, we will see the needed changes on this article.--Dark Tea  13:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What bias? Even more editors -- registered and not, those who have commented and not (by mere virtue of not making said changes) -- seem to be satisfied with the original content.  So far: I have reverted you, as has another editor since, and the editor who began this section was quite clear in stating that the top map was "ridiculous."  You are the only editor advocating for such massive change.  As well: you did not discuss such substantial changes beforehand.  In addition: you just apparently notified us that you would be 'stacking the deck' (e.g., meatpuppetry) which is highly discouraged.  I believe anonymous edits have previously been made to support your versions, and I wonder about their source.  Anyhow, before you say that your maps/content should remain because they are sourced and impartial, this is not to the exclusion of current content: I'm sure a multitude of additional sources can be provided to support the current content; I can add these if necessary. Corticopia 17:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * These accusations dodge the fact that seven credible citations were removed with for no legitimate reason. I never advocated the use of sock puppets.  I encouraged the anonymous IPs to register who agreed with me.  The anonymous editors agree with me because they know the Middle East is not part of Asia along with the United States government foreign relations agency, US newspapers and the British Broadcast agency.  Yes, many people agree with me, but unfortuneately the ones who spoke their minds are anonynmous. It is very apparant that the numerous citations I have added to support my position have been willfully removed for no apparant reason. Could you tell me why citations from the US government, US news agencies, UK news agencies and the Australian government do not constitute credible sources?--Dark Tea  10:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing is being dodged: you are placing undue weight on a particular viewpoint despite prevailing legitimate content to the contrary, and you have previously attempted to 'refactor' this article with that viewpoint. Even one of the anons whom you've cited to support this perspective does not.  Consult a common dictionary or encyclopedia, for example, and none ascribe the definitions to 'Asia' that you are promoting; however, they may allude to its use more as a "geographic term than a homogeneous continent", which this article already addresses.  The adjective 'Asian', though, may be another matter.  As well: how do you qualify 'mostly', 'rarely', etc.?  These seem to be original assessments to me.  Anyhow, feel free to add verifiable content to this article or appropriate subarticles, but any attempt to insinuate "ridiculous" content in place of current legitimate content as before or place undue weight on this content will be corrected.  Corticopia 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of the middle east (that is not part of Africa) is part of asia and no government in there has ever denied this (except maybe Israel). We have asian games, asian football(soccer) federation etc and all these countries are part of it. In fact last year's asian games was held there. Britain and US consider this whole region (middle east, including african countries) as a different entity for their foreign policy stuff. In my country India we (people and the government) believe that middle east (except african part) is asian and I have not met anybody from this region ever denying it. Leotolstoy 14:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hosting the olympic games does not make a nation consider itself part of Olympia. Just because India wanted to organize a sporting tournament called the "Asian games" and later on the Middle East wanted to host the event in their homeland does not mean they also consider themselves to be part of Asia.  I would not expect them to change the name of the event as I would not expect the Olympic games to take on the name of its host country. --<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The middle east is always considered Asia, due to its geographical location. The geographical definition is the NPOV. PioKuz4 15:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In what other "definitions" middle east is not asia?. Leotolstoy 15:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I'd like to know. PioKuz4 19:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of it not being Asia, and it's on the Asian continent (geologically and geographically), so I don't know why this is mentioned in the image. · <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">A</b> ndonic <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">O</b> Talk · Sign Here 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Me neither. I'm totally mystified as to why he thinks I think it is "not" a part of Asia. 74.38.35.171 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been no original research or undue weight, but only a balanced reporting of the other side's viewpoint as demanded by the NPOV policy. It is not original research to report that the US governmment's foreign relations, the Australian government, US news agencies and the British Broadcasting agency do not consider the Middle East to be part of Asia. These credible assertions have all been cited.  This is not an issue of whether or not User:Corticopia's POV has more supporters among Wikipedians.  The NPOV policy says all credible sides must be presented.  The undue weight policy says to not give undue weight to minority opinions.  Well, multiple governments and news agencies do not constitute minority opinions.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have found more maps that agree with the me. I think it is now clear the point of view that the Middle East is not part of Asia is widely held.  It is perfectly clear what the NPOV policy demands.--<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi DarkTree, I dont think any of these websites try to be authentic source of demarcation of continents. First map does not have pakistan and a bunch of other countries AND it is a wine company website!!. Second one is a travel website and this map is their travel zones (Again, I can point out a hundred mistakes in this map). Same with the third... I can go on and on. The point is none of these "proofs" are authentic enough to shown that middle east is not a part of Asia. Please post a link that is official (most probably from a government website or a reputable organization). Leotolstoy 02:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have just proven that they are credible sources. Yes, some people do not consider Pakistan to be part of Asia.  Yes, it is the travel website and a wine company, but could you shoot down the other sources?  The Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean sources are the most credible as they are actually Asians unlike the United Nations run by Europeans.  It is absurd that the only source this article has been using to define Asia isn't even part of Asia.  I wonder if on the Japanese-language Wikipedia they have a Japanese organization define the boundaries of Europe rather than listening to Europe itself?  I already brought up governmental sources from the US and Australia whereas the only opposition to these sources has been a single United Nations source.  Really, in all fairness my point of view should have been accepted by the NPOV policy when I had seven sources to your one source, but when I find you think twenty-seven sources vs. your one source is not enough, I question the value of Wikipedia policy.  What good is a tried and true policy if a bunch of Wikipedians choose to flagrantly violate it?--<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  02:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And you alone, against consensus, support said these changes. Yes: it is clear what this article requires -- and that is not your singular "ridiculous" version. Corticopia 03:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is also explicitly stated in the WP:CON policy that it doesn't override the greater interest of the WP:NPOV policy.--<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then, you must demonstrate that your intepretation deserves mention above and beyond what the article already notes regarding this (last paragraph of 'Definitions and boundaries') ... and you haven't yet. Corticopia 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My POV deserves mention because many if not most sources agree with it. The current POV on the article is actually the European-Union bias POV.  I think the POV that needs to be justified is the current POV on the article which is rooted in one source.--<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  04:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just one source? Straw man -- the alternate perspective is already given due weight. In any event, additional sources will follow.  Corticopia 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not a straw man. I know that there are other sources that support that point of view, but as it stands only one source is backing it.  I never said only one source exists that could back it.--<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a straw man: you assume that your arguably original perspective about the topic, around which you've previously tried to refactor this article, should usurp other content in the article which can also be enhanced through additional sourcing. I see a number of sources supporting the current content and will add others.  Anyhow, others may wish to continue this discussion, but I do not.  Corticopia 04:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Do you even know what the no original research policy means? It demands users not synthesize new theories on Wikipedia. Your baseless accusations grounded on misinterpretation of policy will not win you the argument and will only derail the progress of this fine encyclopedia.--<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes: this is getting as ridiculous as your edits have been; these have derailed progress more than anything else. I -- and apparently others -- are unconvinced of your refactoring of content and intentions (which convey an original perspective of what Asia is or Asians are and how rarely or not these terms are used), despite other reputable content to the contrary -- which is supported by a variety of reputable publications: five sources, including Britannica (map) Merriam-Webster Atlas of Canada National Geographic, et al. You might want to think twice about sparring regarding reliable sources. This discussion is ended. Corticopia 18:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You still don't appear to understand the original research policy. The policy does not mean that the POV you personally disagree with should not be on the article.  It means that unverifiable theories can't be added.  Don't I still have twenty-seven independent, credible and multinational sources backing up my POV?  It doesn't matter that you have found six more sources to back up your POV, because I never was disputing whether or not your POV can be sourced.  Your ability to source your POV does not detract from the verifiability of my POV.--<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  04:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You still don't appear to understand that you continue to use a straw man to push your "ridiculous" edits/content on the rest of us, and subsequent commentary. I can provide far more citations to corroborate the ones provided and other content in the article, but I needn't: your POV is already given due weight in the article and you cannot continually insist that your 27 'sources' (most of which are of dubious/no authority) usurp others.  And your framing/synthesis of the content is original research, because you have not qualified nor sourced how and why the terms are as prevalent (e.g., rarely, sometimes) as you would have us believe.  Anyhow: I've had enough of this: others can engage you on this if they wish, but I will not.  Corticopia 13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just have one last comment here. Search for US map in google images. You will get at least 7 (out of 20 images) in first page without alaska. Does that means Alaska is not a part of US?. If this can happen to a well defined country what do you think will happen to a fairly poorly defined continent?. Leotolstoy 13:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)\
 * If you believe in the easy falibility of maps, why do you support the map with a single citation vs. the map with twenty-seven citations backing it? If maps are as fallible as you would conclude, then it is far safer to go with the map with the most citations backing it.--<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this DT. The Middle East isn't just considered part of Asia, Europe and Africa sometimes are too. Why don't we just include a map of the world, and put "sometimes considered Asia" on the entire Eastern Hemisphere, and "rarely considered Asia" on the Western? There are sources that consider the Americas part of Asia (say, Christopher Columbus :). Then again, India is a geologically a continent all on it's own; should we say, "not really Asia, but considered part of it"? On the other hand, the Middle East is part of Asia geologically, but you claim it isn't. · <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">AO</b> <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mythology?
I noticed that in the "Etymology" section, there is no mention of the Greek mythological figure Asia, or Clymene. Of course, where this name comes from in itself is still a good question, but I find it odd that there is no mention of this myth. 74.38.35.171 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Russia and Turkey
Russia and Turkey are European countries and no parts of Asia at all despite bordering it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon Doh (talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Incorrect according to a number of viewpoints, notably the intro of this article. Corticopia 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Asia does not exist and you argue and argue. You remind me of the religious of old, debating the nature of Christ's body at the mass.

Ethymology of Asia
Asia is an Indo-European word which comes from ide Aus- 'rising, dawning' (Latvian aust 'to rise (about sun), to dawn', ide Ausārā 'morning blaze, dawn, sunrise', Latin Aurōra (s>r change), Latvian ausma, austra). So Asia is shortened form of Ausiā 'sunrise land'. Roberts7 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky Vandalism
The natural resources and manufacturing sections have some vandalism that slipped through the cracks. Other (presumably valid) edits have been made since then. Cos111 01:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of map/satellite imagery
The maps and satellite imagery were deleted by DarkTea under the description of "removed pictures that only took one POV where multiple POVs exist". This seems to stem from the content dispute over what constitutes "Asia" - but it is inappropriate to just delete the maps, IMHO. As such, I've reverted the edit pending input from the regular contributors. Thoughts? --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  05:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a similar dispute over whether Central America is part of North America, or whether North and South America are even separate continents. Nevertheless there are still maps containing the disputed landmasses, according to the most widespread understanding of the terms. Removing a map of Asia makes no sense to me, and I intuit a strong POV imperative here... Popkultur 05:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this does stem from the debate over the definition of Asia. I was thinking of either removing the map or adding the maps of the other POV in accordance with WP:NPOV. I have multiple RS citations for the other POV, so I could add the other POV map per WP:NPOV to solve the problem.  I chose to remove the maps because when I added the other POV maps before they were removed.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  07:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * DT, what you just described is not good practice. Please keep in mind the following from WP:POINT:

--JWB 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone deletes information about a person you consider to be important from an article, calling them unimportant...
 * do argue on the article's talk page for the person's inclusion, pointing out that other information about people is included in the article.
 * don't delete all the information about every person from the article, calling it unimportant.
 * Of course it stems from a POV dispute -- namely, DT's continued insistence on 'redefining' Asia (giving undue weight to Asia' nebulous nature) and adding alternate 'sourced' maps corroborating this viewpoint at the expense of others. A plethora of sources can be added to the maps which exhibit the prevalent reckoning, and even the UN scheme for countries/regions reflects this.  (Note that 'Asian' may mean something different; cmpare with America/American.)  You have done this numerous times before, DT, and have been reverted by a number of editors.  Until you convince a consensus of the validity of your assertions, these arguably disruptive edits will not hold. Corticopia 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you challenge me to give many maps when I only need one RS. This citation Welty, Paul Thomas. The Asians Their Evolving Heritage Sixth Edition . New York:Harper & Row Publishers, 1984. ISBN 0-06-047001-1

Is where sociologist Paul Thomas Welty claims that the continent of Asia only includes the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. He claims that Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. are part of a continent/region called the "Middle East". This book is printed at many California universities. I have provided other citations which I have shown you before. <ol> <li>Asia continentOmits Pakistan and west, Russia, includes PNG</li> <li>Asia continentSame</li> <li>Asia continentExcludes Pakistan and west, includes Central Asia and Asian portion of Russia, includes Indonesia, includes Maldives</li> <li>Asia continentExcludes Arabian peninsula, includes Iran, unclear on Iraq, includes eastern Turkey, excludes Indonesia, includes Russia</li> <li>Asia continentExcludes Arabian peninsula, includes Iran, includes Central Asia but not Russia</li> <li>Asia continentIncludes Afghanistan but nothing west or north; primarily position map for Philippines</li> <li>Asia continentIncludes Afghanistan but nothing west or north; Russian site, and former Soviet republics are distinct category in Russia</li> <li>Asia continent Same as last; also Russian. Location map for Vietnam</li> <li>Asia continentIncludes Russia, Central Asia, Caucasus, but not Iran or west, or Indonesia. Location map for Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Not identified as map of all of Asia. Main page 2 levels up has heading map of Asia including Arabian Peninsula and Turkey, unclear on Israel, including Russia and Central Asia.</li> <li>Asia continent Japanese-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent JWB:Location map for Nepal and Bangladesh for site specifically about Nepal and Bangladesh. Does not say "Asia" anywhere on map or in URL.</li> <li>Asia continentJapanese-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent. The word "Asia" is in English. JWB: Site also has. Main page lists Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan under Europe, indicating classification that keeps whole Former Soviet Union in one region.</li> <li>Asia continentJapanese-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent. JWB: No identification of sum of the 3 regions as "Asia".</li> <li>Asia continentKorean-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent and Russia JWB: Somewhat inconsistent with map on main page, though agree on exclusion of Iran and Arabia.</li> <li>Asia continentKorean-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent. </li> <li>Asia continentKorean-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent, Central Asia. JWB: No identification as "Asia".</li> <li>Asia continentChinese-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent, and Central Asia. JWB: Travel agency site.</li> <li>Asia continent Chinese-language link, includes Far East, Southeast Asia, Indian Subcontinent, Central Asia, Russia. JWB: Also omits Indonesia and Malaysia.</li> </ol> , yet you still wish to break policy User:Corticopia by ignoring the WP:NPOV. You seem to be tied up with the consensus policy again. You and I did not arrive at a consensus last time. WP:CCC we should invite other editors to see the facts.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * DT, please add explanation to your image links. I gave a start by adding info on the first 10. Almost every one shows a different subset of countries. And they are all travel agency maps, so structured for travel arrangements convenience, not as an attempt at definition, except for 10. which is actually contrary to your assertion. --JWB 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not the one breaking policy: as I've noted, your argumentation may have validity regarding the notion of 'Asian', and this may also have limited utility in this article -- this is already given due weight (read the third intro paragraph, in 'Definition and boundaries').  However, you continue to usurp prevalent notions regarding Asia (i.e., since Classical Antiquity) with your own.  I challenge many of the URL's provided above.  In opposition, if you would like me to add sourced and fully reliable maps/references (e.g., from a number of governments and reference items) to corroborate the current article's content, please advise.  And I do not need to negotiate a consensus with you alone: in additon to myself, two other editors have challenged your removal of this information, which is predicated on POV-pushing.  Until the situation changes, I see no reason to relent. Corticopia 22:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I clearly have sources for the 3 region POV and your sources for the other POV do not erase my sources. The Japanese, Korean and Chinese sources are clearly outlining geographic borders, defining Asia. They are not showing pictures of the people or culture and defining the "Asian".  Paul Thomas Welty explicitly states very early in his book the continent of Asia and has a picture to illustrate it.  I do not dispute that one POV is that Asia is the landmass east and south of Europe.  Your further citations for that POV do not cancel out the citations I have for the 3 region POV.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of editors who are unfamiliar with the WP:NPOV policy accuse other editors of POV pushing. This accusation sounds like a violation of policy but it isn't.  NPOV stands for neutral point of view rather than no point of view.  Consequently, the accusation of POV pushing is an empty threat.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor can your sources usurp others. As well, at least three editors (myself included) have come to the same conclusion regarding your POV actions.  You are barking up the wrong tree, Tea. :) Corticopia 23:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure that when other Asian editors see the evidence WP:CCC<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure -- no consensus has supported your reframing of content, or this removal of maps/images. Until then ... Corticopia 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

<ol><li>Asia continent</li><li>Asia continent</li> <li>Asia continent</li> <li>Asia continent</li> <li>Asia continent</li> <li>Asia continent</li><li>Asia continent</li> <li>Asia continent</li> <li>Asia continent</li> <li>Asia continent</li> <li>Asia continent</li><li>Asia continent</li><li>Asia continent</li> <li>Asia continent</li> <li>Asia continent</li><li>Asia continent</li><li>Asia continent</li> <li>Asia continent </li> <li>Asia continent</li> <li>Asia continent</li> </ol> I have found another map. That brings the cites up to 20 + the one Welty source.---<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that User:Dark_Tea is trying to create new definition of the boundaries of the continent of Asia. Padishah5000 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that User:Padishah5000 is in denial of the mountain of evidence for different POVs of Asia that I have found from independent sources. The accusation that I am creating a new definition is absurd, since these maps clearly illustrate their individual authors' opinions rather than my own.  I did not make the numerous maps I have found for definitions of Asia.  Most of them are Korean, Japanese and Chinese language sources whose Asia maps do not show the Arabian peninsula or other Middle Eastern cultures as part of Asia.  Many clearly indicate that they represent a concept of Asia by their title, although it is in a foreign language.  It seems to me that the definition of Asia conceptualized by East Asia does not include the Middle East because they have no cultural connections to East Asia.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  10:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I am still not convinced. Asia, as defined as a continent, is just that. A continent. Not a "cultural sphere" or whatever. Padishah5000 04:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The cultural defintion of a continent is a POV. The outdated defintion of Asia is a POV.  Both of the POVs are notable whether or not you choose to be "convinced".<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  04:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a quick response!

wrong population data
In the UN geoscheme based chart, transcontinental countries such as Russia and Georgia have partial pupulations. could you provide sources of where you got those exact numbers from ? I strongly believe that they are not accurate. In Europe page for example, they are mentioned both as in Europe and asia and notes explain that the whole population was included probably because they could not provide sources for them,while this page does not say anything about them.--UltioUltionis (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Massive changes to article
While I can't claim to be an authority on the region, it does seem that the large-scale changes Darktea is making should be discussed first. I have reverted back to a version by Corticopia. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:TOPIC says to have the article's contents about its topic, but not vaguely related to its topic. The section on Asian people culture is off topic, because the article's topic is the continent.--00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is true: some of the changes you've made are somewhat agreeable, but some are not. And please remember that I do appreciate that you may have a viewpoint, and a cited one (or melange) at that, regarding different interpretations of Asia and, particularly, Asian – after all, my grandfather is from Lebanon, but I do not consider myself Asian. However, this content must be dealt with equitably and, especially with regard to Asia and Asian, some of your editions/refactoring have been excessive or outright bullox. Also do not try to justify en masse content editions, which arguably may be contrary to consensus (since the content has been in place for some time) by oversimplifying and insinuating policy at every step. I will peruse the article/changes shortly, will restore contents if needed, and others should do the same. Corticopia 02:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this article should include two sections. It should include a section for definitions of Asia and a section for Asia's etymology. It should not include the off WP:TOPIC section on Asian people or culture<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree – this is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia (read the definition), and this article should be as comprehensive as possible, harking of articles for other continents (e.g., Europe, South America) with sections about geography (physiography, human geo), history, and the whole she-bang. Look at the Britannica entry for Asia – comprising 122 pages online, it is not as limited as you would have us believe. Why is it that you continue to deprecate this wholly valid concept in favour of your more nebulous viewpoint? Corticopia 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is Argumentum ad populum. Just because the other continental articles do not follow WP:TOPIC does not mean this article must follow suite. On your second point, I find it laughable that you link to the Wikipedia article about an encyclopedia or link to other online encyclopedias as if they are relevant. Only Wikipedia policy is relevant such as WP:TOPIC, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, etc.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No: what other reliable publications do and contain is directly relevant to the topic at hand – I will take their framing of content over yours any day. And you seem to be misguided about the very policies you invoke. Instead of attempting to source an image or map or tag it as unsourced, for example, images which are otherwise not problematic, you remove them or add personal concoctions. Despite overwhelming evidence, you continue to attempt to whittle down and deprecate content to suit your needs. I find it even more laughable that you persist in pushing a viewpoint after so long despite little or no consensus to do so – correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no one coming to your defense. You are also hypocritical: you provide 20+ 'sources', almost all of which are half-ass (not to mention some of which some of us can't verify since they are not in English), yet discredit reliable publications that detail the concept of Asia at length. Whatever – I'm done with you. Let me put it this way: if you continue to insinuate your subjective viewpoint onto this article and disrupt, your edits will be reverted en masse and you will be dealt with administratively. And I will comment hereafter only when necessary. Corticopia 02:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:V means verify sources. It does not mean look and see the format of other encyclopedias, then override Wikipedia policy. You continue to talk about POV as if you don't understand the policy. WP:NPOV does not mean no POV. It means neutral POV. It appears that the POV you favor is already in the article. The other POV is very notable. I have found multiple maps of the current functional definition of Asia. Your gripe is clearly not about policy, because I have listed multiple definitions of Asia that can be WP:V. It appears that your arguments for your case is not based on policy at all.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 07:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When policy doesn't suite you, you make fallacious arguments. Your appeal to tradition was that this article is clearly fine, because it has stood in its current condition for some time. Your argumentum ad populum was to point out that the article on Europe and South America brake WP:TOPIC, so this article can too. Your argumentum ad baculum is that you threaten to tell the admins on me. Unfortunately for your case, you have mustered up no policy-based objections to my edits.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 07:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your favorite misunderstanding of policy is WP:CON. It is as if you believe the whole set of policies boils down to a vote. You say, that you "see no one coming to your (Dark Tea's) defense". Read the Consensus. It says that an exception is "Foundation Issues" which includes WP:NPOV. It turns out that your claim of concensus won't let you brake WP:NPOV.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 08:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Like before, you simply claim, "I'm done with you". When you cannot argue your case based on policy, you simply deride the opponent's argument as "subjective" or call them a hypocrite. I wish it was that simple for me. If that were the case, I could simply call the other editor's argument foolish and discontinue talking with them. Unfortunately, I must make logical arguments. Throughout this conversation, you fail to address the argumentive points I make and the fact that I base my points on policy whereas yours are based on misunderstandings of policy and falacious arguments.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 07:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As numerous editors have implied, your arguments and edits (which aren't even predicated on consensus) are unconvincing and, IMO, replete with logical fallacy. I am not insistent that the article remain as is, I maintain that it should be enhanced and be as comprehensive as possible (as this is an encyclopedia); what you condone is, well, the opposite. You attempt veil your content editions as neutral, but they in fact fly in the face of the very 'Foundation issues' you invoke. Your verbiage notwithstanding, when I say 'I'm done with you', that acknowledges the fact that discussions with you are getting circular and are no longer productive, even counter-productive, and hereby extricate myself from further involvement. Basically: if you persist in continually pushing your viewpoint and stirring sh*t as you have been, don't be surprised if you are ignored by me or others and likened a troll. And that's it. Corticopia 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlike Corticopia's claim that I use logical fallacies, my claim that he uses logical fallacies shows concrete examples. His claim is an empty accussation. When you say, "I'm done with you ", you are noting the point where you have no desire to continue arguing, because you realize your arguments aren't based on policy or are fallacious.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First failed argument not based on policy pushed by Corticopia: other online encyclopedias. User:Corticopia argued that other online encyclopedias have long articles, so this article should be long. This is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia is run on Wikipedia policy. The policy never says to look at the way other encyclopedias run and make Wikipedia's articles a parallel to them. Wikipedia policy does say to stay on the article's WP:TOPIC. This article's topic is about the continent of Asia. It is not about the Asian people. The religion, philosophy, notable individuals, and economic statistics belong squarely with the people not the continent.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Second failed argument based on misunderstanding of policy pushed by Corticopia: WP:CON. Corticopia thought that WP:CON overrode WP:NPOV. He tried to make the issue boil down to a simple vote, but Consensus says that "Foundation Issues" are an exception. Foundation Issues include WP:NPOV, so WP:CON does not override WP:NPOV or any other foundation policies.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Third failed argument based on fallacy pushed by Corticopia: the ad populum. Corticopia looked at the Europe and South America articles at argued that this article should include philosophy, religion, culture, etc. like those, using the fallacy two wrongs make a right. For the purposes of this article, it doesn't really matter if those articles broke the WP:TOPIC policy by meandering off topic. Their error does not need to become this article's error.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fouth failed argument based on misunderstanding of policy pushed by Corticopia: WP:NPOV. Corticopia likes to deride others by claiming they are "POV pushing". The WP:NPOV actually encourages the push for multiple notable POVs. The "N" in "NPOV" stands for neutral POV. It does stand for "no" POV.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fifth failed argument based on misrepresentation of my argument pushed by Corticopia: WP:V. Corticopia claimed that my foreign language maps cannot be WP:V because they are in a foreign language. I have 21 sources. The English-language maps can be WP:V and certainly sociologist Paul Thomas Welty's map can be WP:V<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Welty, Paul Thomas. The Asians Their Evolving Heritage Sixth Edition. New York:Harper & Row Publishers, 1984. ISBN 0-06-047001-1


 * Sixth failed argument based on fallacy pushed by Corticopia: tu quoque. Corticopia claimed that I was being hypocritical in my application of policy by considering the maps to be on par with the online Encyclopedia source. He would have us believe that I cannot form arguments based on policy because he believes I also break policy. He rejected my arguments based on my purported hypocrisy which is an example of tu quoque.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now it is time for my arguments to be laid out.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:TOPIC says that articles should be constrained to their topic and not include information that is vaguely related to their topic. The culture, religion, notable individuals, economy section is off topic, because they all deal with the Asian people not the continent of Asia. Unlike a nation, Asia does not have an economy; it has many nations within it that have economies. The same argument goes for culture and religion. Surely, the notable individuals section is clearly within the subject matter of Asian people and not hte continent.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:WEIGHT says that articles should maintain WP:NPOV, but give greater weight to the common POVs. For example, it says that at one time the greater POV would have gone to the flat Earth theory, but now it goes to the round Earth theory. Similarly, the definition of Asia which includes the Arabian peninsula is no longer the majority opinion world-wide. It used to be the majority opinion in medieval times when Europe labeled everything east and south of it as Asia. The US government considers them to be separate regions for foreign policy mattersBureau of Near Eastern Affairs. For policy matters, the US sees an Islamic terrorist Middle East and a peaceful Asia. The other current source is sociologist US-citizen Paul Thomas Welty (1984) who claims that the Middle East is not part of Asia. The current Duke University sociologist US-citizen Sri Devi Menon source here on page 70 says that currently the US considers the Middle East to not be part of Asia. WP:WEIGHT demands that if your POV is a notable minority, then it can be attributed to a notable critic. The US and two sociologists are notable, so the three region POV meets the requirement of "significant minority". It may also meet the reguirement of being majority viewpont. To be a majority viewpoint the POV must be present in commonly-accepted reference materials. Now, I have looked and I have not found the 3-region POV in most encyclopedias-- except one. "Asia." The Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia. Rand McNally, USA: 1983. pp.416
 * This source says there are three POVs on Asia. It says that geographers consider Eurasia to be the true continent. It says by region Asia divides into 6 regions: Soviet Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia. It says that there are two "realms" that which is "Asian in culture" and that which is "not". It lists East, Southeast, and South Asia as the cultural Asia. Another acceptable reference material are scholarly books. I have found one.

Nelson, Jane, et al. The World's Great Religions:Volume 1: Religions of the East. Time Incorporated, New York: 1957. pp.62
 * In this book the authors show a map which they label "Asia". This "Asia" only includes East, Southeast and South Asia. It appears that the 3 region POV clearly meets the requirements of a significant minority and I also feel that it meets the tougher requirements of a majority. Consequently, there should be a change in this article. There should be no maps in the title unless they express both views and the maps in the body should express both views.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found the exact quote where sociologist Paul Thomas Welty says the definition of Asia.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 22:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Welty, Paul Thomas. The Asians Their Evolving Heritage Sixth Edition. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1984. ISBN 0-06-047001-1
 * The region called Asia in this book stretches from Pakistan on the west to Japan on the east and from the northern borders of China to the southernmost boundaries of Indonesia. Within these borders are included the countries and territories fo India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), the People's Republic of China (Mainland), The Republic of China (Taiwan), North Korea, South Korea, Japan, The Mongolian People's Republic, Burma, Thailand, Kampuchea (Cambodia), Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Nepal Bhutan, Brunei, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macao, and the Maldive Islands, (Welty, pp. 21

I think the article should be left as is. I find the arguments to change it unconvincing. -Popkultur 11:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. Corticopia 01:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Translation = your statement has been read. Corticopia 17:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the true translation requires knowledge of your argumentative style. You refuse to contue arguing with editors after you know you have run out of arguments that have not been shot down as fallacies. Corticopia has a couple of argumetative strategies that s/he employs regardless of the situation. I have personally noticed this simplistic argumentative style in my dealings with him/her, but I am now surprised to find that this is a regular pattern for him/her. Corticopia argues that appeal to tradition implies WP:CON on this edit with User:Meowy:---<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 03:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * the current content was long-ago arrived at and harks of the common border between Europe and Asia. The other states of the Caucasus are generally reckoned to straddle both Asia and Europe, while Armenia, in the Transcaucasus, is generally reckoned to be in the latter.
 * How similar it is to this edit with User:Dark Tea:
 * no consensus has supported your reframing of content, or this removal of maps/images.


 * It is also similar to this edit with User:Dark Tea:

Until you convince a consensus of the validity of your assertions, these arguably disruptive edits will not hold


 * The other clutch argument is that when Corticopia finds out that s/he cannot win an argument based on policy, Corticopia claims the other arguer is a troll and refuses to talk with him/her. Look at this argument with User:Meowy on this edit:
 * And I'm unsure what you're adept at, except at gibbering and perhaps resembling a troll, which I refuse to feed hereafter.
 * How similar it is to a comment with User:Dark Tea on this edit:
 * Basically: if you persist in continually pushing your viewpoint and stirring sh*t as you have been, don't be surprised if you are ignored by me or others and likened a troll.


 * Corticopia's favorite misunderstanding of policy is WP:CON. It is as if Corticopia believes the whole set of policies boils down to a vote. You say, that you "see no one coming to your (Dark Tea's) defense". Read the Consensus. It says that an exception is "Foundation Issues" which includes WP:NPOV. It turns out that your claim of concensus won't let you brake WP:NPOV.--<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Corticopia's clutch argument is the fallacy argumentum ad baculum. When s/he knows no policy supports his/her actions, s/he returns to threats. These are in reality empty threats, since the arguers s/he argues with are neither trolls nor are their actions troll-like. For any policy Corticopia may claim User:Meowy and User:Dark Tea brake, User:Corticopia has broken one continuously, namely WP:NPOV.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote makes it clear the definition is just for convenience in referring to the area he is covering in the book. This is the same totum pro parte as the shorthand American use of Asian for East Asian or British use of Asian for South Asian. It does not show anyone is denying that other regions of Asia are Asian. --JWB 01:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes: as such, I have removed the quotation. As an alternate, the quotation can be included within the reference (e.g., akin to an endnote). Corticopia 02:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A totum pro parte interpretation of the quote is OR against WP:NOR. This is not the same case as America/American. American is a reduced form of US-American; it doesn't change the definition of the Americas. When Welty defined Asia for his book, he did not intend for it to be a hypothetical instance that he felt was not universally true. To reinterprete his words like this, would be OR against WP:NOR. On the contrary, he intended for his defintion to be the true definition which he felt excluded the Middle East.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 07:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Per JWB (emphasis mine): "The region called Asia in this book ..." – it's more for convenience. If I produce even five reputable volumes which corroborate the concept and borders harked of in this article already, I'm sure you'll concoct some reason to deprecate them. Please. So, yes, DT, stop indulging in such original research and POV-pushing. Corticopia 13:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What part of "in this book" don't you understand?
 * Are "universally true" and "true definition" your words or does Welty actually use them?
 * American is a reduced form of "US-American" (a phrase I've never heard or seen) no more than Asian is a reduced form of East Asian, South Asian, etc. --JWB 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand everything about what "in this book" means. It means that unlike other POVs, Welty's POV is that Asia includes the East, Southeast, and South Asia, so he must clarify this difference. You claim that he never uses the word "universally", but he also doesn't use the word "totum pro parte". Without either word, the sentence must read what it appears to read. Namely, that his definition of Asia is a POV that not everyone holds, but a definition that he will publish in his book. Your reinterpretation of this statement is OR<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to change the definition of Asia, if I might ask? Padishah5000 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to "change the definition of Asia". I am trying to include the currently-accepted POV of Asia with the WP:WEIGHT it deserves based on its POV being published in commonly accepted reference materials. Due to it being published in commonly-accepted reference materials, its POV is considered a majority POV by the WP:WEIGHT policy. This means that it deserves equal weight with the outdated historical view on Asia.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 03:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should a single author care the weight of an entire article, especially one that defines an entire continent? I really believe that you are confusing the racial defintion of "Asian" in America, with the geographical definition of Asia, the place. Padishah5000 17:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One author does not carry the weight of this article and I am not confusing the Asian race with Asia. There are many sources I have cited that do not include the Arabian peninsula or other Middle Eastern countries as part of Asia. Some conceptions of Asia do not consider Russia to be part of Asia rather considering it to be part of Europe. These are also cited. In response to the allegation of confusing the racial definition of the Asian with the place, I have not recently tried to use the US Census as a citation. The US Census could have said that the Asian is a person from Asia and Asia is defined as the Far East, Southeast Asia, and the Indian Subcontinent, but they didn't. They did not use the term Asia, so I have dropped them as a citation for the alternative point of views on Asia.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 10:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The U.S Census DOES use the defintion of Asian without the Near East included, but that is a racial definition, and not a geographic one. The bottom line is that Asia is a defined physical continent, independent of any human inclusion into its boundries. Padishah5000 19:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

when and why did they use the word asia???pls tell me the answer..

Possible reorg
I'd like to rework the current structure a bit, with the basic goal of moving towards a feature-worthy article. It's notable that only continent articles with featured status are Antarctica and Australia, both of which are very unusual continents. Also potentially of interest is the featured article for India, although it is about the country rather than the subcontinent. Anyway, based on these examples and my general impression of the current article, I'd like to change to something like the following structure:


 * --Name and definitions (consolidate these two sections, perhaps move details to sub-article or to Wiktionary)
 * --Territories and regions (better name for this?)
 * --Politics and diplomacy (it's very odd that this is missing)
 * --Geography (perhaps discuss "regions" in more detail here)
 * --History (not sure why this is currently only "early" history)
 * --People (perhaps the "Nobel prize winners" and "demonym" subsections could go here?)
 * --Economy (convert "trade blocs" to paragraph form, rm subheadings)
 * --Society and culture (include languages, religion here)
 * --References
 * --See also
 * --Further reading (or "external links" if we must...)

I'm not profoundly attached to any of this, I'm just looking for feedback before going forward... There's a lot of great stuff in this article, but at the moment the minutiae are tending to overwhelm the core topics. A general enforcement of summary style is in order. – Visviva 10:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like those subarticles are much more encyclopedic than this one. I think merging summaries of the subarticles into this article, and moving some of the more trivial content of the current article into subarticles, would greatly improve balance. --JWB 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After looking at the original article and looking at what you suggested, I believe that this will greatly improve the organization of the article. Right now the Asia page isn't very well organized. I approve. --nyeguy 03:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Groovy! I've been snowed under with other stuff, and may remain so for a few days, but will try to return to this soonest. Of course, if anyone else felt like doing the honors, that would be just ducky... – Visviva 14:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They will kill their own kind just because their leaders said they have too many people in the country. Its wrong to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.237.2 (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macao
Didn't Hong Kong revert to Chinese rule in 1997, and Macao in 1999? I don't see why they should still be classified separately. Their figures aren't even given together with China.
 * You should know that this has been discussed ad infinitum. :D -- Howard  the   Duck  02:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Territories table
It lists two Taiwans and no China, something has to be corrected there. I guess rename first Taiwan to Peoples Republic of China should be enough? Or there was a reason for this? Normis99 11:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Taiwan is not a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.237.89 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This depends on your definition of "country." Many people believe that Taiwan is an independent country currently occupied by China. The Chinese government believes that it is a rogue territory of the PRC. It might be appropriate to have it listed as "Taiwan (Republic of China)" to have this ambiguity demonstrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VelaenOscuridad (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Area of Georgia is 69,700! not 20,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.218.237 (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

REGIONS OF ASIA
I have never seen IRAN be part of south asia. It is commonly known that Iran is part of the middle east. Also i have never heard of the term western asia. The area named western asia is called the middle east.If any body has other arguments please say so. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmabbas786 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If the user up there never heard of the word western Asia then they must be an ignorant. Eastern Iran ( province of Khorasan) is actually located in "central Asia", and the rest of the country in Southwestern Asia. Middle east is a combination of Western Asia and some parts of North Africa, the world itself has a history of roughly ~120 years. Before that it was called Asia. Please don't yell out your ignorance in public. Thank you. 74.12.100.254 (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See United Nations geoscheme. 122.2.84.176 16:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why North Africa is a part of Asia? Temur 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Egypt east of the canal is considered by many as part of Asia. 122.2.84.176 16:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The "World map showing the location of Asia" is mixing Mid-East and West Asia. Even the map in United Nations geoscheme is weird. Siberia and the Eastern area of Russia are categorised as East Europe, even though lots Mongoloid people live there. --222.145.8.14 04:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the UN geoscheme is weird. but the biggest problem is how did editors calculate the population of the asian sections of transcontinental countries? there are no references and no sources, did they count people village by village - which I doubt - or did they just made those numbers up? sources need to be provided or they should be deleted.--LI Begin (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, lots of Mongoloid people in Siberia? Surely you are mistaken, there's not a single major region where they would comprise over 10% of the population, with the exception of Tatarstan, but it's supposedly in Europe. It's like taking Inuits into account when speaking of Canada. --Humanophage (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Religions of Asia
Yeah this entire section is completely mixed up. There's Chinese stuff in the Indian section, Indian stuff in the Chinese section, etc. Is there a reason...? Or, if there are no objections, should I just go ahead and fix it up? --Vamooom 03:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Content blanking heads-up
I've reverted the blanking of the Islam section multiple times, just wanted to make sure everyone was aware it should be there and notices its absence, unless a discussion on this talkpage indicates otherwise. ~ Eliz 81 <sup style="color:#1E90FF;">(C)  22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Map
The map seems to have given West Papua and Papua their independence from Indonesia - is this a political statement or an oversight? - 202.4.78.29 03:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Islands east of the Wallace Line isn't part of Asia anymore. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe Indonesian Papua is usally classified as inside political Asia but outside geographical Asia. Grinkov (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

GDP
Please stop putting PPP GDP as the main one. This always give the wrong notion that China and India have higher GDP's than that of Japan, which is misleading and inaccurate. Note that all other sources give priority to nominal GDP rather than PPP, so why do we always do the opposite here?. Davi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.74.247 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. PPP is just purchasing power. The nominal GDP and GDP per capita of China and India are not that high yet. --222.145.8.14 04:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Does the word "substinant" exist in the English language? Apparently not. What was intended with such an adjective? Probably there is some spelling mistake. Please rectify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto Chilosi (talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

UN Geoscheme
Can someone explain why is the UN geoscheme preferred over the other not any less credible definitions of regions? also where are the sources for the partial population of transcontinental countries ? where did they get those numbers ?--DavAlex (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Russia
I think the population of Russia in Territories and regions is wrong. If total Russian population is about 142 million how can the asiatic part has about 139 million? Maybe that's the european Russia's population, but the never the asian Russia's.--Enkiduk (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The 139 estimate is several years old (it's meant to be the entire population) The newest count is 142 million and the Asian portion is only 42.2 million. European russia is 100 million people. But I don't know how to edit that thing. Mayday2010 (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I corrected it and put the figures of entire population and area as the sources could not be obtained to verify the partial data.I saw in Europe page thats what they did to countries that are sometimes considered transcontinental.--UltioUltionis (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Many inconsistencies
Under the population listings, Russia is listed as having 139 million people (and it says that's the Asian portion.) This is wrong, the Asian part of Russia Siberia has only 40 million people. Also, why is Egypt listed under North Africa on an Asian page at all? It says figures are for the Asian portion only (east of the Suez canal) but it still says population 80 million. 80 mil is the population for ALL of Egypt. The Asian portion is probably about 1 million (not many people live in the sinai desert.) These figures are overlapping and wrong. If you added up the total populations of the continents (as per the wikipedia page for each continent) you would get More than the world's population. Plus, we need to update the populations. Some of them are like the 2002 population count, whereas when you click the nation's page itself it has the 2007 population count. These counts are way off and are of different years. Mayday2010 (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

yes I agree.. so are the populations of other transcontinental countries and chart does not even mention that russia is partially european. I just wrote a new topic on that and I hope we will take care of it.--UltioUltionis (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Egypt
We need to find the population for the asian portion of Egypt, it is NOT 80 million. I cannot find it anywhere. If nobody can find the count (either 1 or 2 million lets say) we should scrap the entire Egypt part of the nation listings. The person who editted this gave Asia 80 million more people. Mayday2010 (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

link on a political map is not working
Hi, there is a link on a political map of Asia (Asie.svg) that should be fixed. Hover your mouse over Jordan and you'll see a text 'Jor., page does not exist' because it should be linked on Jordan article, and not Jor. I would fix the problem myself, but the article is locked for anonymous user like me. 213.191.143.122 (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)anonymous_user

possible error in article
Under the list of Southern Asian countries and their capitals it says Sri Lanka and its capital is Colombo. But in the article of Sri Lanka, it says Colombo is largest city and the capital is Sri Jayawardenapura-Kotte. 213.191.143.122 (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Religions
These is no point in including references to the bible and koran when talking about Chinese mythological floods. Floods occur on every continent. The Abrahamic flood itself is based on the Mesopotamian tale of Gilgamesh, about when the fertile crescent region was flooded by a large storm. Intranetusa (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Singapore is independent!!!
Why is Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore considered Malaysia? Singapore is already independent - it's pointless including something which is incorrect currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.162 (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I added "and Singapore" to the post-1963 description. Better? Rikyu (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

map
The map of the world(next to the introduction) that shows Asia highlighted has the Mediterranean Sea grayed out as land, making Africa and Eurasia appear to be one supercontinent. 150.135.66.12 (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

...
Yeah guys, "The most popular religion in the world has entered Asia including the middle east." Doesn't sound very NPOV like... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.75.145 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Christianity entered Asia sometime around AD 226"... I believe it was started in asia =) --Jojohippo 08:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this would be a problem, considered the Promised Land is part of Asia. I wonder what part of Asia they're talking about... The Evil Spartan 19:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah i agree with them. how would it have "entered" Asia after it started, if it starte there?--- klenole —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok on a completely different note, i'm not much of an editor so I haven't created an account but i noticed that the early history of asia is based on the aryan invasion theory?.. anybody care to explain why so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.229.63 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalized
The whole page was deleted by someone and replaced by... something, so I just copy-pasted from the previous history and put it back to normal. -Rick Apt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Apt (talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

sdkjgfvogui iuspdfvgiuo asyc ruipgycftuip wvegp uhyeoityiaweuyrt8ouavt650 v9q3t6p iru9gyt0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.49.164 (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Palastine?
not recognized. it is a de facto area. and jerusalem is what they claim to be their capital. which is like me claiming to be the king of england. ramallah and gaza city are the capitals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.91.224 (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

asia real talk
asia is the bigest country well maybe it is a country but yea anyway they r the most unexpected they would do 2 it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.234.196 (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Palestine does not Exist!
I am sick and tired of WIKIPEDIA trying to provoke us, Israelis. How would you feel if someday Mexico would announce that "San Diego" is the new capital. Jesus christ this is SO presumptuous of you to do that. Not only mention that Jerusalem is their capital, but recognize them as a country (which they are not). Providing false information is something you're great in, Wikipedia. This is preposterous. Whoever wrote that should be ashamed of themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.201.121 (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted you. Please respect WP:NPOV, and do not remove cited text without good cause. The Palestine article, by the way, disagrees with your beliefs:
 * "After the 1988 declaration of state, the State of Palestine was formally recognized by 117 United Nations member states. Many countries, including the EU and the United States, have diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority, and have recognized the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza as a 'Country' for legal, economic, and political purposes"
 * Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 12:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)