Talk:Asia/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Cultures of the World]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes; these repeated POV edits are irksome. E Pluribus Anthony 23:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by [[User:DLinth|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]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Asia/Asian 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've nixed the tag. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how long's this thing been tagged for cleanup? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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?  Ronline ✉ 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Nakhichevan as a separate entity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Territories and regions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Total Density 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  japanese or chinese word for asia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  asia 

message: 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)
replies: text: Of course Egypt is not in Asia.  You are correct anonymous signer.--DarkTea 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No he is not correct user, the Siani Peninsula is geographically in Asia.Therequiembellishere 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Egypt 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: For one, the Middle East is part of Asia. 74.38.35.171 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I learned that iran was in Southern Asia.Therequiembellishere 19:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Iran]] 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect listing on Russian Population and Area 

message: Was that ridiculous map decided upon, or is it vandalism? | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have cited these viewpoints from credible sources, so Wikipedia:Neutral point of view demands their points of view be heard.--DarkTea 11:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--DarkTea 12:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia: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.--DarkTea 13:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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?--DarkTea 10:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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. --DarkTea 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text:  In what other "definitions" middle east is not asia?. Leotolstoy 15:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what I'd like to know. PioKuz4 19:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.DarkTea 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--DarkTea 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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?--DarkTea 02:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is also explicitly stated in the WP:CON policy that it doesn't override the greater interest of the WP:NPOV policy.--DarkTea 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--DarkTea 04:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--DarkTea 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--DarkTea 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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.--DarkTea 04:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--DarkTea 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. · AO Talk 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sometimes/always Asia map 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mythology? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Incorrect according to a number of viewpoints, notably the intro of this article. Corticopia 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia and Turkey 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ethymology of ''Asia'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sneaky Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  wrong population data 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible reorg 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hong Kong and Macao 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Territories table 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: See United Nations geoscheme. 122.2.84.176 16:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why North Africa is a part of Asia? Temur 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Egypt east of the canal is considered by many as part of Asia. 122.2.84.176 16:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  REGIONS OF ASIA 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religions of Asia 

message: 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. ~Eliz81(C) 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content blanking heads-up 

message: 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)
replies: text: Islands east of the Wallace Line isn't part of Asia anymore. --Howard the Duck 03:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Indonesian Papua is usally classified as inside political Asia but outside geographical Asia. Grinkov (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GDP 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UN Geoscheme 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Russia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Many inconsistencies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Egypt 

message: 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)
thread_title:  link on a political map is not working 

message: 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)
thread_title:  possible error in article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religions 

message: 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)
replies: text: I added "and Singapore" to the post-1963 description. Better? Rikyu (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singapore is independent!!! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  map 

message: 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)
replies: text: "Christianity entered Asia sometime around AD 226"... I believe it was started in asia =) --Jojohippo 08:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalized 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Palastine? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  asia real talk