Talk:Sinosphere/Archive 1

message: I've tagged this because the inclusion of Korea, Vietnam and Japan in any concept of Greater China is completely nonsensical. If the article means to say that those countries have been influenced by China, then fine, though no doubt others have as well. But that influence doesn't make them part of China any more than Taiwan is part of some "Japanese world" because anime is popular there, or Turkey is part of the "Italian world" for using the Latin script. No, cultural exchange is a function of neighbouring states, and the fact that neighbours exchange culture does turn them into the same country. Pruned of its Chinese nationalist garbage, this article may be worthwhile, so I'm not nominating it for deletion. Meanwhile, "disputed". --Zaxios 06:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past Korea and Vietnam were paying tributes to imperial China, like suzerainty. The relations between Japan and old China is more complicated. — Instantnood 09:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but irrelevant. China itself was under Mongol rule, historically, but no one is claiming it as part of a "Mongol world" now. --Zaxios 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Former British and Portuguese colonies like HongKong and Macau should be included in the Angoloshpere and Portuguesphere instead, because the first official lanuage in these colonies had been English and portugeses for centuries. Probably they are still their first official language now. Migye 04:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, the guy just translated this from a French article.  I don't know if the "Chinese world" is a more common concept in France than it is here (canada).  I've never heard of it before...  TastyCakes 05:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having spent the majority of the past two decades in East Asia I'd say this article is far from putting forward a point of view. It's rarely disputed that Vietnam and Korea were under heavy Chinese influences, until the idea of sovereignty was introduced to this corner of the world, and they were established as sovereign states. "Sovereignty" and "sovereign state" are relatively rather new to East Asia, comparing with its long history. — Instantnood 07:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sovereign states are relatively new to the world, full stop. But so what? The article doesn't seem to be referring to any historical concept of a "Chinese world" -- it's talking about the present, and it even uses the modern borders of those newfangled sovereign states in its map. --Zaxios 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Culturally speaking those influences, e.g., Confucianism in Korea, still exist. — Instantnood 18:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Confucianism exists everywhere. In terms of other Cultures, Korean culture is no where Chinese related. Migye 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is untrue. Korean culture is full of stories from China, such as the Romance of the Three Kingdoms and the Journey to the West. To cite a more modern example, Louis Cha's stories are popular in Korea as well. --Kjoonlee 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These stories are well known throughout Asia and the world. Does it mean the all Asia is Sinoshpere? As I argued before culture influence is everywhere and is not unilateral. There are things in China influenced by Korean, Japanese, Mogolian and Vietnam cultures. Do you think that makes China part of Koreansphere or Japanese sphere? Migye 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were better known in Asia before they became known to the rest of the world. Those earlier places are likely to be in the 漢字文化圈. --Kjoonlee 17:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what you mean. I think what I said makes perfect sense. --Kjoonlee 17:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and China would now be part of the 韓流文化圈, if you get what I mean. --Kjoonlee 17:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Language should not be a barrier to human knowledge. — Instantnood 18:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: This new version from the 8 january seem (for me) be more like the "Chinese community" (oversea chinese). Moreover, Japan, Korea and Vietnam don't are (for me) in the chinese world, but just have strongh links and influences. What do you think ? Someone have an official definition ? Yug
:The closest equivalent terms are the Sinosphere/Chinese character cultural sphere/Chinese cultural sphere/East Asian cultural sphere.  On comments below I mentioned I modified the article on 13 April 2006 to include what I have in mind for a draft article Sinosphere.  Would it be a better idea to rename this article as Sinosphere?  (Since we already have the Anglosphere defined on a very similar basis as a grouping/network of countries, but with English as working language and with historic British heritage. --JNZ 06:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to have the move reverted for the time being. It looks like a Wikipedia neologism. There doesn't seem to be any source using the word sinosphere for this meaning. — Instantnood 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of English-speaking people seem to use Sinosphere and what they mean is the "Chinese character cultural sphere" widely used in Chinese language circles. Bennett does point to a network commonwealth of Chinese around the world when he mentions Sinosphere in his book The Anglosphere Challenge.  (Source: http://www.anglospherechallenge.com/ch4samp.html )  It is up to you to decide if calling this Sinosphere is appropriate.--JNZ 03:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any people other than Bennett using " Sinosphere "? Would it be a word he's picked just for the purpose to compare Anglosphere with other -spheres? — Instantnood 19:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: because the Japaneses absurd the term during WWII and is avoided like Nazi. also it is no a co-op, the countries highlighted are known to have absorb/use chinese culture/teaching and based their administration on those of Chinese principles, at least for a period. today, korean and japanese text still use some chinese word. Akinkhoo 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese World or Chinese community ? 

message: This article deserves to stand by itself, but I think it is more appropriate to retitle it "Chinese cultural world" to better satisfy NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.204.87 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did. Yug — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.244.80.175 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better name 

message: I expanded my draft article on the Sinosphere into this stub since most of what I have essentially describes the same thing (Greater Chinese cultural sphere or Sinosphere).  If anyone thinks it is inappropriate, feel free to delete it.
Also since we have the term Anglosphere defined in a similar fashion but describing nations that had English language and cultural influences, and since it has become common usage, would it be more feasible to rename this article as Sinosphere to unify usage of cultural groupings of nations?
--JNZ 06:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Additions 13 April 2006 

message: "grouping of countries and regions that are currently inhabited with a significant number of people of Chinese descents or historically under Chinese cultural influence." Despite the policy of huge replacements of Tibetan populations in Tibet by Chinese population, does Tibet qualify yet? Tibetan culture, language etc. have not yet been fully destroyed. deeptrivia (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More than one culture can exist in an area, especially if each is more or less carried by (a) different ethnic group(s).  In this case, if Tibetan culture has survived until now in Tibet, that doesn't mean there can't at the same time be the Chinese culture brought to the capital by “a significant number of” Hàn immigrants. Wikipeditor 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This point is true, but.... the entire concept of the "Sinosphere" means influence of Chinese culture which means Chinese characters, Chinese literature, Chinese medicine, Chinese religion/cosmology, etc. Perhaps the real question is a "tipping point". Is this based only on population? If so, you could argue that statisicaly Tibetans still outnumber Han Chinese. Is it an historic question? Prior to 1950, China/Chinese cultural influence simply did not exist anywhere besides the building of an ambassador or amban office. Is it a question of political control? If you go to the African country of Zambia, Chinese is everywhere. Immigrant laborers have practically taken over parts of this place, and you see Chinese writing all over. China seems to practically own parts of this place. But it's true that Tibet was militarily invaded and annexed by China since the 1950s and converted it into a pseudo-province. However, if Germany had a huge region that was fundamentally different than anything considered "German", would you color it exactly the same as Germany on a map of a "Germanosphere"? Is Quebec part of an "Anglosphere" because it's part of Canada, or would you give it a different color as part of a "Francosphere"?  If you weigh all these considerations with a rational and hopefully dispassionate mind, it seems difficult to justify putting Tibet into any map of a "Sinosphere".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.100.32 (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibet 

message: In the article there is a phrase:"and its overseas Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau..." Are Chinese people in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan considered as oversea Chinese? There is no "sea" between Macau and China as I know.
-Oscar24 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.192.16 (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: from google earth, i can see a man-made canal between mainland and Macau. so i guess they fix that problem! =P Akinkhoo 17:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overseas Chinese 

message: These links : List of tributaries of Imperial China, Suzerainty, Tributary state are about military matters. I'll suggest have them removed. Migye 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Suzerainty-tributary relationship has led to much cultural exchanges between China and its historic tributary states.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The point remains that cultural exchange did happen with suzerainty-tributary relationships.  Besides, those links only serve as suggested reading for readers interested in the subject.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course we can.  If you can think of any other articles that are relevant to cultural exchanges or Chinese cultural influence, I encourage you to include them in the See also section.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your arguement simply silly. But, as a compromise, I'll replace the above links with links to History of China or manybe history of other countries. Migye 18:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is my argument "silly"?  How many times must I point out that suzerainty-tributary relationships yielded a lot of cultural exchange?  And again, I disagree with taking out the current links.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: They are the causes of a lot of cultural exchange, and like I said, the See also section only acts as suggested reading.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See the links I already provided in the last section, and the section before that.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For the last time, suzerainty-tributary relationships were the reason for a lot of cultural exchanges.  I don't really feel like repeating myself anymore, but I feel those links need to be in the article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, some of their sources do.  And like I've said again and again, those are just to act as "suggested reading", and suzerainty-tributary relations have been the cause for a lot of cultural exchange.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree that they're irrelevant.  I think those links are very relevant.  And those links do not actually have to talk about cultural exchanges.  Like I keep saying, they're only to act as "suggested reading".  And also like I keep on repeating again and again, suzerainty-tributary relations were the cause for a lot of cultural exchanges.  That alone makes them relevant links.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I disagree that they are irrelevant, so I guess we don't have concensus anymore.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not nice. You should focus on building consensus. :( --Kjoonlee 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, your argument doesn't make any sense at all and you seem to refuse to take simple logic into account.  Anyway, not all of Asia is within Sinosphere.  Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia (or the Malacca Straits area), etc, are not usually considered to be within Sinosphere.  I've seen your contrib history, you seem to only want to remove List of tributaries of Imperial China and the picture in question from a whole bunch of articles.  I'm kind of doubting if your concern is really about this article specifically, or if you just want to remove links to the article and the picture throughout WP.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because he didn't mention them doesn't mean he excluded them. That's a logical fallacy. Don't remove links without consensus, if people disagree with you. --Kjoonlee 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And where exactly does James Bennet say that these countries are not in Sinosphere?  Even then, there are other sources that contradict that.  NPOV would mean we include different opinions, and not exclude those we personally do not like.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think those links are disrespectful.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Irelevant Links

message: This is just a note to let everyone know that Migye has posted a notice on the incidents noticeboard about this article.  To any editors responding to the claim that was posted there, my response is this - sources have been provided to justify the current state of the article, while Migye has not provided countering evidence, and has only made assertions.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notified on the Incidents Noticeboard 

message: I have no problems whatsoever with the content of the article, and have no interests in starting a new debate on whether or not the concept is accurate or which countries should be included, etc. But, having read all the above comments, I remain unconvinced that "Sinosphere" is a commonly used term in scholarship (or in everyday discussion), that it is not a neologism, and that it is a better term than "Sinocentric world order", "Chinese cultural sphere" or the like. Can anyone provide some examples of scholarly works that use this term? (Not a single outlying example like Bennett, mentioned above, but a good number of sources) Thank you. LordAmeth 12:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick Google search actually found a recently published book that used the word in the title, but it's a book about China's role in Africa.  The title is "The New Sinosphere" - that suggests an academic place for an "old" Sinosphere to begin with.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just search at Google Scholar and you get loads of results on the Sinosphere. (You have to dig a little because there's a journal called Sinosphere, but there are still a lot of results after that.) --Kjoonlee 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Thank you for that. LordAmeth 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism? 

message: Neither Mongolia nor Inner Mongolia use an Indic-derived script. Mongolia uses Cyrillic, while the classical Mongolian alphabet still used in Inner Mongolia isn't derived from an Indic script. Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Phillipines all use Latin-based scripts for their languages, Brunei uses Arabic script. In Xinjiang, Uyghur is written either with Latin or Arabic script. In Korea and Japan, Chinese script is used in conjunction with native script, while in Vietnam characters are not used at all, but replaced with Latin alphabet. In other words, the map is wrong for more than half the countries depicted, and wrong for most of East Asia and Southeast Asia. --Yuje 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I believe the point may have been to indicate cultural influences, not just writing systems. Many parts of Mongolia and Western China are more influenced by Persia and Central Asian cultures than, say, Eastern China, Japan, or Korea. ... Vietnamese history and culture is very heavily influenced by Chinese culture, and only stopped using the Chinese writing system within the last few centuries; Korea, I've heard rumor, is phasing out Hanzi, but they're only doing so now. So the general cultural influence is very much there, if not fully obvious in the written language. (Besides, Vietnamese language is extremely heavily influenced by Chinese, even if it's no longer written in the same system.) LordAmeth 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Mongolian part would be blue and the caption explain that the whole map is related to traditional usage and blue means ultimately derived from something like phoenician or syriac or sogdian alphabets, it might actually be useful (the northern part, anyway). As it is now, it's complete nonsense.Yaan 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with alphabets and everything to do with a wider definition of cultural influence. See character: 3. A distinguishing feature; characteristic; A complex of mental and ethical traits marking a person or a group. LordAmeth 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the map is supposed to be defining cultural spheres, then why are all the green countries clumped together? Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan are in the Islamosphere, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka are all Theravada Buddhist countries, India and Nepal are Hindu, while Bhutan, Tibet, and Mongolia are part of the Lamaism sect of Buddhism. Phillpines is Catholic and fall outside any of these cultural groupings. Oh, and the Japanese writing on the map explicitly mentions that they map is supposed to be based on historical writing script, so in the case of Mongolia and in the case of many of the Muslim countries (which historically used Arabic), it would be wrong.--Yuje 07:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, right. I should have read that first. Sorry. LordAmeth 10:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this map is less about the current situation but is averaged out over history. Latin script in Indonesia, Chinese script in Tibet etc. are relatively modern phenomena. deeptrivia (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rediculously inaccurate character map 

message: Vietnamese does not have a term for this concept.  The reading of the Chinese characters for this concept is gibberish in modern Vietnamese. DHN 07:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Vietnamese used Chinese characters in history. Now they have not used, but their language have so many wordage are derived from Chinese.Đại Nam Việt (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what's what in modern Vietnamese, the term is present within the Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary. I am not aware of any such rule that only common phrases can only be considered to "make sense", and not rarer ones - you may as well delete the articles on verisimilitude, Tetrahydrocannibinol and perestroika under your argument. You cannot argue that the words "do not exist" in Vietnamese simply because usage is uncommon in everyday literature. (Note that this is a direct Vietnamese Quoc Ngu reading of the Han tu/Chinese characters.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

text: --Betoseha (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Translation: "I stand by the use of the Sino-Viet phrase 'Hán tự văn hoá khuyên', however, it is seemingly difficult to obtain an information source for its origin. If anyone is capable of helping, please contact me ASAP. Thanks." Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: 我建议把 “Hán tự văn hóa khuyên" 的汉字加上来，因为“Hán tự văn hóa khuyên"是 “汉字文化圈” 的拉丁化样式，所以应该使用汉字解释，跟韩语和日语一样Đại Nam Việt (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This term is essentially an invention of Wikipedia.  Please cite a Vietnamese-language source that uses this term, otherwise this is original research. DHN (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. A reading is a reading, a dictionary definition is a dictionary definition, they cannot be "invented". This does not constitute WP:OR. I mean, how can I prove that the reading of 中国 in Hanyu Pinyin is "Zhong guo"? How can I prove that 四川腾中重工机械有限公司 is "Sìchuān Téngzhōng Zhòng Gōngjīxiè Yǒuxiàn Gōngsī"? There are no specific sources or academic documents which specifically make a note on it. Does it count as WP:OR? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As this article indicated, the term "Sinosphere" is coined late in the 20th century, when Chinese has as much relevance in Vietnamese as Latin in English. Imposing the Sino-Vietnamese reading of the Chinese characters for this modern term seems ridiculous to me. As I noted, please cite any Vietnamese usage of this term, otherwise it is Chinese and has no relevance to Vietnamese. You can prove that such a thing as "四川腾中重工机械有限公司" exists by citing various published sources that refer to it; similarly, you can prove that "Hán tự văn hóa khuyên" exists by showing someone actually using that term.  I'm not claiming that this term is rare, I'm claiming that it is nonexistent. DHN (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop using the Vietnamese reading of the characters 

message: I haven't seen any significant discussion for this article in months, so has interest disappeared? The notion of "Sinosphere" fits in as a good analog to "Anglosphere," so I can see how an anglophone would think of it as a good concept and article title. Well, its supposed Chinese name 漢字文化圏 translates to "Chinese character cultural zone," which is not the same as what the name Sinosphere would lead you to think, especially if you consider it an analog to Anglosphere. In fact, the literate world that uses the Latin alphabet would be the exact counterpart to 漢字文化圏.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.119.118 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your discussion continued in 2008 

message: I'm a bit dubious of anglosphere and sinosphere as useful terms, but ignoring that, it appears to me that South Korea would be a good candidate for inclusion into the "contested" paragraph under the "Current Developments" section. They clearly are influenced by both US and China, primary influences of each "sphere". -- KarlHallowell (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is riduculous to not include South Korea as contested, especially when compared to Singapore and Hong Kong where most of their population IS Chinese. Is not South Korea's governmental, legal and business practices more akin to English-speaking countries than China?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.214.189 (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe "Sinosphere" as canvassed in this article is primarily about language and culture. If drinking coke and playing baseball fits one into the Americosphere, then the whole world fits into it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is not a "sphere of influence" in a political sense, but a cultural sense.  I think the inclusion of Taiwan and Singapore (not allies of the PRC but obviously under the influence of Chinese culture) demonstrates this.  Also, what happened to the map that was in here?  TastyCakes (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Korea "contested"? 

message: You are waging an edit war. Can you prove that Tibet isn't Indospheric and Turkic languages aren't spoken in Xinjian? Login first and edit properly. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous 139.95.251.9 

message: Wouldn't Mongolia qualify? Zazaban (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically speaking, Mongolia had a written and spoken language completely unrelated to Chinese, however, used Classical Chinese as a lingua franca for communication between states (as evident with Kublai Khan's letter to the "King of Japan"), as with many other Central/Northeastern Asian states, such as the Jurchens (where communications with Korea were all written in Chinese), pre-Qing Manchus, etc. The Mongols, Manchus, Jurchens, etc. all had their own native written scripts, however accepted that Chinese was the official medium to which foreign relations was written (or even spoken) with. These peoples never used Chinese to communicate with each other (instead using their native tongues and scripts, a la Mongol script, Manchu script...), but with other states. Now, whether we should include these states depends on your, our and officially recognised definitions of Sinosphere - is it countries which use Chinese characters in it's native language, or countries which embraced Classical Chinese as a means of official communication? I myself am rather confused of this issue. Comments please. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: The Chinese Wikipedia seems to follow the course of including Mongolia, Outer Manchuria, the rest of French Indochina, and a large landmass to the West. But then again, Chinese Wikipedia is rather POVed. I don't think that, from a cultural perspective, Mongolia was very "Sinified" in comparison to, say, Japan. There doesn't seem to be strong links found in areas such as architecture, art, etc. Perhaps the Chinese Wikipedia considered the outer extent of the Qing Dynasty to be part of the Sinosphere... -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Another comment: (sorry if I seem to be getting a bit verbose, just did a bit of browsing and found something) I've just noticed that for quite some time, the Mongolian language was often transcribed into Chinese characters (see Mongolian writing systems#Foreign scripts). For example, the only surviving copies of the earliest known piece of Mongol literature, The Secret History of the Mongols, is written in the Mongolian language but exclusively in Chinese characters, in a phonetic manner. The contents of the work (e.g. "忙豁侖紐察 脫[卜]察安") do not make sense in the Chinese language, as they are the transcribed readings in Mongolian. This may also be taken into account when regarding the significance of the Chinese writing system at the time. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Judging from all this, I'd say it would make sense to include it in the map. There's also the Yuan Dynasty in there. Zazaban (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongolia 

message: This is BULLSHIT and were I Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese I'd be highly offended. How the hell can you highlight the rest of those countries with China and call it the "Sinosphere?" No matter what influence China may ever have had on the countries surrounding, by A.D. 2010 there's plenty of cultural individuality to distinguish one from the other and one from China. To still claim they are part of some "Sinosphere" is unjust and not the least bit biased. I can't believe this is a real article and so many are defending it... Jersey John (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, nobody is saying that Japan and Korea are China, as you have stated above. Second of all, the term is used by academics in academic documents, whilst your personal, original interpretation is not documented as a proper source. Remember that Wikipedia is a place of information based on sources, and not original research. Thirdly, if you actually read carefully, the article does not necessarily advocate the Sinosphere. There are reasons given for and against the term, that are documented by academics. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

text: First of all, I interpret your above comment as a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK against myself. Does the article state in any way that the concept has to entirely relate to the modern world only? It's funny how you use an entirely different tone in your off-site email to me compared to how you speak here. By all means, find some verifiable sources to back up your arguments, or else, give it a rest. You have so far contributed little other than a series of whinges, profane comments, and a WP:ATTACK against myself. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree with Jersey John: Sinosphere denotes East Asian civilizations that is historically characterized by heavy Sinic influences. I have never heard of any negative connotations associated with Sinosphere - since it denotes a Chinese Pan-regional association between people of similar cultures. You are making a big fuss out of nothing, go take your trolling somewhere else.Phead128 (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After more than a year, you chime in what that? Look, I like to defend my friends also, sometimes even when they are completely wrong... But after more than a year, that is asinine. And before you point out the irony, I have not looked at this article since before you commented. Jersey John (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Which leads me to wonder who the troll is. Jersey John (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WOW! 

message: Why hasn't this been deleted? Or at least renamed? Jersey John (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Troll harder. Then you might get a bit more attention. </tongue-in-cheek remark> -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Hey, it just comes up. It's one of the 4138 articles on my user watchlist. Learn to wikiuser. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The man who shows his knowledge immediately reveals his guilt. - Analects of Confucius -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Hey cool guise, let's beat a one year old dead horse! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously 

message: In the top of the article, it gives the translation of Sinophere as 漢字文化園 kanzi bunka en, or "Chinese character culture sphere," a term which includes Japan and Korea, then it goes on to describe the Sinosphere as being composed of places which speak Chinese as a first language, which doesn't.  In other words, it's being written with people who have completely different definitions of the term they're describing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.246.24 (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this article about?

message: Why is the Philippines, Indonesia, & Thailand not included? Sorry, I'm new here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.193.216 (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am aware of, they have never been part of any Chinese cultural sphere. Thailand is an Indianized kingdom that uses a Brahmi-based alphabet, Indonesia is a Islamic nation, and the Philippines are nowhere as "within the Chinese sphere" as the other two. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm 

message: According to this article, the term "Sinosphere" is coined by an American linguist.  Why the heck are we glossing this English term with Chinese characters that AFAIK are translations of this English term? DHN (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the article infobox, the translations are of "East Asian cultural sphere". There is more than one term to describe the topic, and Sinosphere is just one of them. Oops, it looks like an IP editor removed one of the parameters from the infobox. I'll be adding it back now. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: To clarify, in English-speaking terms, the neologism coined in the US "Sinosphere" might be common, however the word is not used in Chinese; in Chinese the concept is known as "East Asian Cultural Sphere". There are a number of terms, more than one, which describe the same concept (Confucian world, Chinese world, Chinese character sphere, Kanji world, etc), and Sinosphere is not the sole, nor the most dominant term. 漢字文化圏 translates to EACS, not Sinosphere. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese term??? 

message: Just putting this intpo he mix, but wasn't the Sino sphere once referring to the Japanese led Asia and it derivative terms Co-prosperity  sphere, it seems that sino - has slipped to mean China now...anyway...some history buffs may hel[ out here but I can not but help feel their has been a slippage in the meaning, conceptually though it seems to accords who is leading up the far east area  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JUBALCAIN (talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan - Sphere 

message: I was curious about the lack of Singapore in the list of countries in the Sinosphere.  Unfortunately provision of sources is unhelpful because:
*A large fraction of the sources are not in English.
*Some of the English sources are long but the citation doesn't say where in the source to find the information.
"Sinosphere" isn't a term one sees much of - is there even a consistent usage for it in English or is it something writers occassionaly make up when the feel like it as a parallel to "Anglospere"?  This article needs better sourcing or it needs deleting. Readin (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better sources 

message: Surprisingly, this article doesn't contain a list of countries and regions that belong to the sinosphere. --93.220.56.101 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of countries? 

message: Why is Singapore not included? over 70% of its country is Chinese.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.35.195 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 February 2013 UTC
:Part of the problem is that it's not clear what this article is about (as discussed above).  Kanguole 09:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singapore 

message: Substituted at 20:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Vietnamese, Japanese, Korea certainly speak Chinese. even now, the phonetical links are undeniable.
Sinophone (漢語圈) is not the same as Chinese character cultural sphere (漢字文化圈). Countries like Japan, Vietnam, and Korean never spoke Chinese but they adopted Chinese characters and Classical Chinese as their official writing system and written language. The statement "It differs from Sinophone includes countries such as Japan, Korea and Vietnam which have historically made some use of the Chinese writing system or currently make use of it" should be revised. For clarification of translations please refer to the section below. --N6EpBa7Q (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 「Sinophone」≠「漢字文化圈」

message: * 東亞文化圈 = East Asian cultural sphere
* 漢字文化圈 = Adoption of Chinese literary culture (though usually known as the "Chinese character cultural sphere" outside Wiki)
* 漢語圈 = Sinophone 
What you see above should be the correct translation, but the "Chinese character cultural sphere" (漢字文化圈) articles in the East Asian language versions of Wikipedia are being redirected to the article "East Asian cultural sphere"! The interlanguage links in Chinese (Zh), Cantonese Chinese (Zh-yue), Mingdong Chinese (Cdo), Vietnamese (Vi), Japanese (Ja), and Korean (Ko) realy should not point to "Chinese character cultural sphere."
=== East Asian cultural sphere vs "Chinese character cultural sphere ===
East Asian cultural sphere (東亞文化圈) is not the same as "Chinese character cultural sphere" or the more common name "Chinese character cultural sphere" (漢字文化圈). This article discusses the two as if they were one topic and the interlanguage links of the article are very messy and misleading. 
The concept 漢字文化圈 emphasizes on Chinese literacy culture, while 東亞文化圈 emphasizes on Chinese culture itself. However, the interlanguage links to the Chinese, Japanese, and other East Asian version of the article East Asian cultural sphere are coming instead from "Chinese character cultural sphere."
Please migrate the interlanguage links that refer to 漢字文化圈 to Adoption of Chinese literary culture instead of East Asian cultural sphere.
--N6EpBa7Q (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Interlanguage Links! 

message: East Asian cultural sphere (東亞文化圈) is not the same as "Chinese character cultural sphere" or the more common name "Chinese character cultural sphere" (漢字文化圈). This article discusses the two as if they were one topic and the interlanguage links of the article are very messy and misleading. 
The concept 漢字文化圈 emphasizes on Chinese literacy culture, while 東亞文化圈 emphasizes on Chinese culture itself. However, the interlanguage links to the Chinese, Japanese, and other East Asian version of the article East Asian cultural sphere are coming instead from "Chinese character cultural sphere."
Please migrate the interlanguage links that refer to 漢字文化圈 to Adoption of Chinese literary culture instead of East Asian cultural sphere.
--N6EpBa7Q (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Asian cultural sphere vs "Chinese character cultural sphere 

message: The new map added by User:Durianlover1 has way too much of a pro-Chinese POV. I've reverted it back to the original. I highly doubt that all of Siberia, Central Asia, Nepal, and Southeast Asia are part of a single cultural sphere.--Ross Monroe (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly doubt that all of South Asia, Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, Southwest China, and the Philippines are part of a single cultural sphere, but a similarly gradiose map exists on Greater India. It all depends on the criteria used to label the area, which in that case is the historical use of some Indic script, the adoption of Buddhism by some of the populace, and even the existence of certain loan words from Sanskrit. Reverting someone based on your intuition that they "have way too much of a pro-Chinese POV" is pretty inflammatory, and there are more tactful ways to handle questions of defining this concept. Shrigley (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I have put back the revised map as it is a more accurate representation of Chinese cultural sphere. The old map refers to the Sinophere world, where Chinese character was/is used - primarily in PRC, ROC, ROK, DPRK, and Japan. As for the claim that it's too pro-Chinese POV, I am simply the messenger - don't shoot me. As for your doubt whether all of those countries are within a single cultural sphere, I agree that there are more than one influencing culture. Some of those countries were/are also part of Greater India and Islamic world (Indonesia, Malaysia, Western China, etc). Durianlover1 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have revised the article, with new references from Western scholars and a more neutral tone. That nonsense about Siberia and Nepal being part of China needs to stay out. Also, no more edit wars, if anyone wants to discuss why I took the map out, talk about it here and not by reverting its deletion.--Ross Monroe (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: "More accurate"? Really? Do you have sources to back that up? [citation needed] please. Comparisons to Greater India are completely irrelevant. I'm not sure why you and Shrigley are bringing it up. I'm not trying to insult you, and I apologize if I overreacted, but we need sources here.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yupe, you overreacted on this matter and I have escalated this issue for resolution. There are extensive of facts and historical artifacts supported it. How about yours? Do you have any evidence that "Chinese cultural sphere" only refers to China, Vietnam, Japan, and Korea?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durianlover1 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at all the sources listed under References in the article. The usage by Nishijima Sadao, Samuel P. Huntington, Edwin O. Reischauer, and Arnold J. Toynbee shows that this mainly applies to the core East Asian countries.--Ross Monroe (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For Central Asia: Biran, Michal. The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World, Cambridge, CUP, 2005 (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization)Durianlover1 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: For South East Asia: Chee-kiong Tong. Identity and Ethnic Relations in Southeast Asia: Racializing Chineseness. Springer, 2010 Durianlover1 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: For North Asia: Ann Reid (2002). The Shaman's Coat: A Native History of Siberia. Walker & Company.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durianlover1 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the sources present specifically mentioned that the regions are part of the Sinic world, Chinese cultural sphere, or the hundreds of other labels for the concept. Nishijima Sadao does include Mongolia as part of the cultural sphere, and Huntington includes Singapore and other Southeast Asian countries with major Chinese minorities. Could we compromise?--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The Chinese cultural sphere is a notable concept, the article just needs to be improved. The so-called "Sinic World" is an academic topic that can be handled neutrally. This article on JSTOR should be used as a guide for how to improve the neutrality of this article.--Ross Monroe (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree with Cydevil38 that there should be a proper terminology for it. When "Chinese" is referenced in this article, it doesn't mean that it supports PRC or ROC claim on those countries. This article should be objective and provide an overview of history. Let's find a better word for "Chinese cultural sphere". How about "Sinic cultural sphere"? Any better suggestion? Durianlover1 (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I replied to Cydevil38 stating that Sinic world is the more common name. If you, Shrigley, and Cydevil want to change it to that, that's fine with me.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I think N6EpBa7Q cogently addressed this issue and went on to create an article that is more appropriate for the topic. While this POV fork is a WP policy violation, nonetheless Adoption of Chinese literary culture provides a more appropriate context under which the topic is presented. Therefore, I recommend merging this article with Adoption of Chinese literary culture or delete this article, while renaming Adoption of Chinese literary culture to a more appropriate title. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I've read some of the discussions at the previous Sinosphere article. If this article and Adoption of Chinese literary culture cover somewhat different subjects, then I suggest using East Asian cultural sphere, which can be translated to 東亞文化圏. While "East Asian cultural sphere" is not very commonly used, neither are the alternatives, such as "Sinic world" or "Confucian world". Meanwhile, "East Asian cultural sphere" can be conveniently translated to relevant concepts in pertinent languages, such as Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Search for "Sinic world" or "Confucian world", which brings up more results. The definition of Sinophone refers to people who speak Chinese, or one of the many dialects of Chinese. The Sinic world includes most of East Asia (Korea, Japan, and Vietnam) which are not considered Sinophone countries, while the Sinophone world includes places like Malaysia and Singapore that aren't part of the Sinic world. The Far East cultural sphere is notable as an academic topic and has been discussed by many scholars, including in Huntington's famous book, The Clash of Civilizations. Sinophone and Sinic are very distinct, and merging it will confuse readers like the original Sinosphere article did.--Ross Monroe (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the term "Chinese cultural sphere" is not commonly used to refer to the concept presented here. Rather, it is commonly used to refer to what you call the "Sinophone world". The Korean transliteration presented here, "중화문화권", also specifically refer to the "Sinophone world". Somehow, the split of Sinosphere went very wrong, and we have these conflicting terminologies. What we need is a common term used in English, and it would be better if this term also translates to the corresponding terms in Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese. If you think "Sinic world" or "Confucian world" is bring up more results, which means they are more common than the currently used term, then one of them should replace "Chinese culture sphere", which is an inappropriate title for this article. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problems with Sinic world. Per your suggestion, and that of Durian's, I will move it. WP:COMMONNAME is what matters. I'm not sure about the Korean translation, but one of the problems with English and foreign language translations is that they don't perfect match up, like the discussion on Talk:Sinosphere.--Ross Monroe (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How about East Asian cultural sphere? Although itself is not very commonly used, it's more commonly used than the term Sinic world, and it has corresponding concepts in other languages. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I have moved the title to Sinic world. I hope that the new title is more neutral. One of the problems with Wikipedia is that on many Chinese articles, a pro-Chinese bias can be prevalent.--Ross Monroe (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sinic world still bears the problems I have previously pointed out. It's not very commonly used, and its corresponding terms in other languages specifically refer to the "Sinophone world". In this regard, I have suggested "East Asian cultural sphere", which is also defined in East Asia, and has corresponding terms in other languages. What is your opinion on this alternative? Cydevil38 (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The eminent scholars Huntington and Reischauer both use Sinic world or civilization as the name for the cultural sphere. Fogel isn't as famous as the other two, but he also promotes the term. A quick Google books and Google scholar search shows more results for it than for East Asian cultural sphere. Do you have any sources that show that "East Asian cultural sphere" is more common? "Sinophone world" is used in English as a term for spoken Chinese, which is what has priority per WP:COMMONNAME. I am not opposed to using an alternative name, if it can be shown that it has been used by prominent academics.--Ross Monroe (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Sinic world is more common, you may have a point that East Asian cultural sphere is more neutral. I have moved it as per your suggestion.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't see the move. If you move the page to East Asian cultural sphere, I can change the corresponding terminologies in other languages except for Vietnamese. Here's a link to the page used for East Asia in defining it as a "cultural" concept. Google scholars indicate East Asian cultural sphere is less common than Sinic world, but considering how the term "East Asia" is often used to define a cultural sphere, I think East Asian cultural sphere may present a much more common and NPOV terminology. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The whole concept is a bit convoluted and oversimplistic. Of course there are Chinese influences beyond the regions discussed here - in architecture (Mongolian Buddhist temples, Nepalese lion-dog and dragon motifs, Tajikstani tea houses, certain mosques in Central Asia, like the ones in Karakol, Kyrgyzstan and Zharkent, Kazakhstan), cuisine (momo and thukpa in Nepal, lagman and manty in Central Asia, buuz in Momgolia), and cosmology (the Chinese zodiac has been adopted by many Turkic, Mongolic, Tibetic, and Tai-Khmer cultures in the countries neighboring China). It's also true to say that many outside cultures have influences China - The erhu, now ubiquitous to Chinese folk music, was adopted from the northern steppe nomads, and is even recognized as a foreign instrument in the name (the “hu” means foreign). Buddhism, and to a lesser extent, Islam, have also had profound impacts on China. Trying to draw lines between the parts where East Asia ends and other regions begin is a useless and ultimately fruitless endeavor. Just take it for what it is. --117.136.26.164 (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent pro-Chinese POV edits

message: "Rice is a main staple food in all of East Asia and is a major focus of food security.[23] In East Asian countries, cooked rice is a synonym of food."
The statement is true for the present history where rice can be found in most of Sinic world civilization. That's said, in the past history rice was not the main staple food in Northern China, only in Southeast Asia and Southern China. Wheat-based food dominated Northern China and other regions. Durianlover1 (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rice as main staple food

message: Friends: several editors have put a lot of work on this article, as you well know, so I thought I would offer my congratulations on a terrific start on an important topic, whatever you decide to call it. The Section "Cultural commonalities" shows an excellent selection of topics.
I do suggest, however, that the article will be much stronger and carry more weight if you:
* Find more Reliable Sources#Some types of sources. The impression I get is that the references came from taking the first thing that turned up on a Google search. Wang Hui is a great man, but citing one passage in a random article is not good. Sun Lung-kee is a wonderful historian, but by no means the authority to cite on Arnold Toynbee.
:Sometimes you just can't find good sources on the internet, or at least you can't tell from looking at Google searches which sources are better than others. If you are near a college or university library, it's much better to look there. Librarians are eager to help.
* I've already suggested in an Edit that you be careful in formatting your citations. Do not cite the editor of the volume, cite the author of the essay. I know it's a pain, but this article is important and you should do your work in a way that will last. For instance, who wrote the article in the book edited by Brook & Luong?
* Also remember that the English Wikipedia prefers English language sources. When a Chinese source is better, it has to be cited in Chinese, not by a translation of the title into English. This is because the notes are not only to show where you got the material but to lead readers to works which they can read (another reason to give solid general sources).
Some specifics:
* Note 10. What is this reference? Huang's book appears to be in Chinese and needs to be replaced with a good reference.
* Note 12, 13, 15. Komicki is a perfectly good reference -- but for some other topic. You can do better than this!
* Note #14. Miyake. No book. Appears to be a broken reference.
* Note 17. No need to say "retrieved" for a book, only for a web reference which can change.
* Note #18. This is a BIG PROBLEM! First: cite the title "Transition ... in the First Half of the Twentieth Century") and author (" X. Yu")of the essay, not the editor of the book. Second: When you see the title, you will realize that the essay is not what you want. You cannot do good work if you just Google and find a passing reference. To do the good work of which you are clearly capable, you need to find the most reliable source.
* Note #19. Two problems: First, the Section Business Culture describes economic development, but does not relate it to the theme of the article. Second: Harrington & Wharf is a fine book, but it is not concerned with "business culture." Get thee to a library!
* #20 Davidson is an OK source, though there are far better ones; but the specific article must be cited by Title and author: Naomichi Ishige, "Food Culture of East Asia." And you need to give more of the details, such as the exceptions to the statement that "Rice is the main staple of food in all of East Asia..." BTW, what is a "staple of food"? Why not just say "many people in East Asia eat rice"?
* #21. Oh -- now I see. Chern et al. say "rice is the most important staple food in East Asia." You did not quote carefully. Also, "food security" is not part of "cuisine."
The editors' work on this page is smart and committed. I offer my suggestions in a spirit of admiration, in the confidence that you will take them in this spirit. But to make Wikipedia work, we all have to do careful work and follow the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. If it were easy, we wouldn't need Wikipedia, we'd just Google everything. ch (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, and I strongly agree. It looks like the cultural commonalities section is composed of parts from other Wikipedia articles. I checked Huang's book on Amazon, and it does appear to be in English. The article should also directly reference Huntington's Clash of Civilizations and Toynbee's A Study of History.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats on exciting and useful article + suggestions 

message: Should Singapore be included as a member of the Sinosphere, considering the huge Chinese influence there? And what about Macau? ForestAngel (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include Singapore and Macau? 

message: In East Asian countries, the word, 'rice' can embody the meaning of food in general (simplified Chinese: 饭; traditional Chinese: 飯; pinyin: fàn).
This needs to be rewritten. 饭 is only cooked rice. The plant is called 水稻. --2.246.29.122 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This might not be a good example. --123.217.72.4 (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rice 

message: Didn't the growing clout of China and Japan and South Korea during the Millennium Era affect the spread of the East Asian Cultural Sphere. I would point to the creation of Manga translated to English, and Animes, and animated films. Maybe that should be included in the section.Qwed117 (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Millennium Era 

message: Why is Southeast Asian countries like Thailand, Indonesia, or Phillipines be included in this article? sure they are influenced by China, but this article is about "cultural sphere", not "cultural influence". Being influenced by China doesn't necessary mean it is part of East Asia cultural sphere. The only culture in Southeast Asia that belong to East Asian cultural sphere is Vietnamese culture. Ekirahardian (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southeast Asia 

message: Taiwan should be included as separate to China due to difference in governance (communist and democracy, PRC and ROC). 
Due to China's pressure, Taiwan is considered as part of China (governed by the PRC) in the international stage, however, in wikipedia, readers want legitimate, unbiased information. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda or the spread of false information. Wikipedia is created to educate people and correct people's understanding of the world with REAL facts that is not influenced by the media, politics or any other factors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DT07 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not add this to the article unless there is consensus to do so; see WP:STABLE. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

text: When discussing culture, the article has not split the Koreas since its existence. Per WP:BRD, the longstanding version before 's nationalist tinkering will stay; this is aside from the fact that the argumentation from DT07 is typical of hardline Taiwan independence / nationalist fanatics. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan's Issue 

message: The source cited in the lead section discusses the history of Chinese writing, and only restricted to China. Based on the source provided this article should be about historical geography from the perspective of language (specifically writing) as opposed to culture as a whole. The interlinkages between the historical spread and development of writing system(s) in a few countries and a supposed cultural region in the present are not clearly demonstrated. Sockerkorn (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead section (and potentially much of the article) is original research. 

message: First, Vietnamese people often say "Hán tự văn hóa khuyển" rather than "Vùng văn hóa chữ Hán".
Second, please remove Vietnam out of this sphere. This is due to the uncommon known about Vietnam's position and role in East Asia. 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:3934:F779:A7A2:3070 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason why it should be removed other than your personal preference. If you do not like the relatively recent Chinese influence on Vietnam, you have to understand that that is your personal opinion. Wikipedia goes off history and historical references which point to Vietnam having had experienced substantial Sinic influence for centuries. This is the reason why it is included. ChrisTakey (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please 

message: The East Asian cultural sphere in its lead states that it encompasses countries within East and Southeast Asia that were historically influenced by Chinese culture. Singapore is 76% Han Chinese, has Mandarin as one of its official languages, and when accounting both Buddhism and Taoism, 43% of Singaporeans adhere to these religions, a plurality. Lunar New Year is a huge public holiday in that country, designated as one of its official holidays. Christianity is also influential in the country, just as we've seen in South Korea. In addition, Confucianism is also a strong influence behind the country's leadership, which was specifically mentioned by Lee Kuan Yew, an ethnic Chinese, their first Prime Minister and arguably the nation's founding father, and the father of the current Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong. His article lead even mentions his own country Singapore as a Chinese society which he had led. The country also uses Han characters (obviously) and uses Simplified Chinese, the only country outside Mainland China itself. And yet I see Vietnam's inclusion despite the Vietnamese language not even using Chinese characters these days. So why is this left out? That's the point of a cultural sphere. The article needs serious rework. Jesobul (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't even include Mongolia for some reason. I'm not sure what parameters this article is actually using... It seems to be simply a "mirror article" of East Asia where Mongolia has been ejected, Vietnam has been arbitrarily included (though, in East Asia, Vietnam has recently been listed as "culturally similar" in the lede) and the article literally revolves around China (in the past, editors have also attempted to make East Asia a soapbox for China, but I've changed it to be more neutral). The entire existence of this article East Asian cultural sphere should be under heavy scrutiny and it needs to be closely monitored. If it is truly only about "cultural similarities to China" and not about territorial sovereignty, then Singapore actually is a good candidate to be included. As you've said, Mandarin is an official language of Singapore, so, by law, Singapore is more Chinese than Vietnam is. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Question