Talk:Sinosphere/Archive 2

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with your concerns. The so-called "East Asian cultural sphere" as shown by this map indiscriminately incorporates the cultures that historically belong to that cultural sphere and the territories of the modern nations that officially use languages of the Sinosphere.

This is particularly conspicuous in the case of China. While China's modern political control over Tibet and other areas, with Mandarin as the official language, and the settling of vast numbers of Han Chinese immigrants in these territories, does mean that these areas now belong unequivocally (through imperialism) to the East Asian cultural sphere, this is not the historical situation. A more nuanced map of China is perhaps needed, one which distinguishes between the historical Chinese cultural heartland and areas that historically only belong to the East Asian cultural sphere by virtue of being part of modern China.

Something similar applies to Japan, where most of Hokkaido was traditionally Ainu and did not historically belong to the East Asian cultural sphere. These areas only became part of the East Asian cultural sphere in the 19th century.

Vietnam is trickier. The south traditionally didn't belong to the East Asian cultural sphere but has been so thoroughly integrated into it over a long period of time that it would be silly to insist on using different colouring for the area of ancient Champa (for instance). Perhaps a couple of historical maps are needed -- but that would almost certainly entail original research. Bathrobe (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the one hand you are saying that Vietnamese culture originated from the Southeast Asian cultural sphere. On the other you are saying it belongs to the Indosphere. And, of course, there is modern French influence. Your point seems to be that Vietnam doesn't belong to China culturally. Well, of course it doesn't.

But whatever the historical background, Vietnam still bears the heavy imprint of the Sinosphere, unlike the historical contribution from the Indosphere (whatever that may have been), which is not readily apparent today. The commonalities with Southeast Asian culture are also more "low culture" than "high culture", which is where the influences from the Sinosphere are most apparent. While Vietnam no longer uses Chinese characters, its culture, language, and religion still retain the unmistakable traces of the Sinosphere.

This is not that different from Japan and Korea, which have independent cultural roots separate from China but have been heavily influenced by the Chinese literate culture and, because of that, also belong to the East Asian cultural sphere. Belonging to the East Asian cultural sphere does not condemn a country to being an appendage of China; it is merely a result of long-term, if relatively recent cultural influence. It does not preclude different ethnic/linguistic roots or other cultural influences.

The result of being part of the East Asian cultural sphere is apparent if you look at language. Whether Vietnam uses Chinese characters or not, the commonalities with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean are immediately apparent from the dictionary, where both ancient influence from Chinese and more recent influences from Japanese (via Chinese) are quite manifest.

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

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

"Sinosphere" could be China's zone of geographic dominance in various ways (military, economic, diplomatic etc). "East-Asian cultural sphere" has a very specific meaning which is not likely to be misinterpreted. AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with AnonMoos. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos Okay? Does the "Anglosphere" not imply some sort of geographic dominance as well? Your logic can also apply to the Anglosphere article yet it is still called... the anglosphere. Orsos 0323 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Before the Suez Crisis of 1956, the term "Anglosphere" might have been very ambiguous also, but that's not really the case in the 21st century. Also, the prefix "Anglo-" refers to England, which might be a little different from the political UK, but there's no such distinction with "Sinosphere". AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos Anglosphere is 100% ambiguous in the 21st century?? Like you yourself said, it means English but also encompasses non-English peoples, like Quebecoise in Canada, the Celtic countries in the British isles. This could also be applied to countries like Belize, which is even more ambiguous. Orsos 0323 (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, applying this logic, should the Anglosphere article be called "Northern European Cultural Sphere." It's vague and comes across wrong to most people in the West who would read it. Orsos 0323 (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

No, "Anglo-" refers to the English language. Only Ireland speaks English in northern Europe outside the UK. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos Sino is also linguistic though? Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese all have Chinese influence on their languages. Orsos 0323 (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

"Sino-" might be linguistic, or might refer to China in other ways. AnonMoos (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos Yeah... same applies to Anglo in Anglosphere. So why does the same logic not apply to both articles? Orsos 0323 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Orsos. The distinction between Sinosphere and Anglosphere or Indosphere seems to be purely arbitrary. They all refer to more than just linguistics or political influence yet the other articles exist without being referred to as South Asian cultural sphere or English cultural sphere. To be clear, the gist of my statement below is that the core content of this article is slightly different from East Asian cultural sphere, which does not encompass Vietnam fully, and rather describes areas around China that were heavily influenced by it culturally and politically. Sinosphere is the more accurate term since the common element is Chinese influence rather than geography and its avoidance is almost certainly out of political considerations rather than the content, which is less accurately described as "East Asian". Qiushufang (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

So is it possible to change it? Orsos 0323 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it should be changed, as per AnonMoos' arguments.Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku His arguments apply to Anglosphere too. Orsos 0323 (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Therefore we should change the Anglosphere article to something ridiculous like "British Isles Cultural Sphere" Orsos 0323 (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

To me it seems pretty clear that what this article is really talking about is all the areas with significant borrowing from Chinese civilization in terms of their cultural and political influence. That's why Vietnam is also included despite usually not being considered East Asian since it borrows more from China more other parts of Southeast Asian. Hence the above argument about Vietnam's placement in this article. The avoidance of Sinosphere in preference for East Asian cultural sphere is likely out of consideration for modern political biases, although the Sinosphere may also be that as well, rather than the contents of the article. The lead says as much. Qiushufang (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Qiushufang "Modern political biases" is just sinophobia. Orsos 0323 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Support move per WP:COMMONNAME; as Google Ngram shows "Sinosphere" has far more usage than "East Asian cultural sphere". Sutyarashi (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

However, Google searching can't tell you when the word "Sinosphere" is being used in the meaning "East Asian cultural sphere", and when it's used in a different meaning, such as the PRC's current zone of economic and political influence. Also, this is not a formal article move proposal... AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos Okay? Google is inherently Sinophobic and demonizes China. Orsos 0323 (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The fact that it's far easier to count occurrences of words with Google than to count the occurrences of specific meanings of words has nothing to do with China-specific topics. AnonMoos (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos Yet implying that Sinosphere is a bad term is deeply entwined in (often anti-Chinese) China-specific topics. It's rooted in the belief that Sinosphere countries such as Japan who have committed genocides against Chinese people don't like the term because of ethnic hatred. Orsos 0323 (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Whatever -- saying that "Sinosphere" has MORE MEANINGS than "East Asian cultural sphere" does, and therefore is potentially ambiguous, has no relationship to being pro-China, anti-China, pro-Japan, anti-Japan, or any other kind of politics. AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos Yeah, it's somewhat ambiguous I agree. So is the Anglosphere though?? You don't understand that I would be fine with East-Asian cultural sphere if the same logic was applied to the Anglosphere article. But big surprise, it's not. Do you really not see how this could be perceived as an anti-Chinese measure so that East-Asian Sinophobes aren't lumped into an ethnicity they hate? Orsos 0323 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It's simply a fact that "Anglosphere" is not perfectly parallel or symmetric to "Sinsophere" in several respects. AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but no. Sinosphere is the proper article title, see Sinosphere (disambiguation). Sutyarashi (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not it's Sinophobic or if it means East Asian cultural sphere is irrelevant because this article does not cover the East Asian cultural sphere, it covers the Sinosphere. The common element is historical Chinese cultural and political influence, particularly in how the countries modeled themselves on the example of China, not a geographical category or East Asian culture. Again, that is why Vietnam is included, and why there are few examples of covering East Asian culture other than Chinese cultural influence. Qiushufang (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

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

This is not a formal article move proposal -- it lacks the paperwork for that. AnonMoos (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. @Orsos 0323 you should request move for the title change. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

I actually agree that Japan is somewhat different in that Japanese multisyllabic names especially standout amongst the 3 syllable Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean names. However, Japan is still part of "Sinosphere" regardless because it uses lots of Kanji and even if it stopped using Kanji, Japanese words would be Sino-Xenic anyway, like Vietnamese and Korean. 61.69.212.180 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

VigilantAcountant: Often Chinese culture came to Japan through Korea, and obviously Japanese people put their own spin on things, and were by no means slavishly imitative of China, but still many aspects of traditional Japanese culture -- writing, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc -- are due to Chinese influences. AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I think what a lot of people are overlooking is that Japan has had a lot of contact directly through South East Asia and South Asia as well, and especially through the modern era after the Cultural Revolution, Japan has maintained much closer ties with South East Asia and even South Asia. WhatIsBusan (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think contact with other areas is mutually exclusive with being a member of a given cultural area. Remsense留 04:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

But it questions why there is even a need for the idea of a sphere when multiple spheres can exist. It seems to be a case of over-generalisation without actually looking into the differences present between the countries. For example, countries such as Taiwan, Korea etc... may in fact constitute a Sinosphere. WhatIsBusan (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying something doesn't need to exist is not an argument. Nothing needs to exist. That's just a circular argument. Qiushufang (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Do you have sources that present similar definitions or perspective? I think competing/nuanced views are very important in articles like these, but we can't just go on our own synthesis of sources here, unfortunately. There are very articulate, well-supported reasons this category exists, as laid out in the article's sources, and other viewpoints need to be weighed against it. Remsense 01:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

27.3.1.80 -- As far as I know, it was the Champa who were influenced by Indic cultures much more than the Vietnamese-speakers were. Vietnamese speakers were influenced more by China than by Indic cultures. And the "Sinosphere" concept is more about historic influences than the last century or so... AnonMoos (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it is widely understood that Vietnam is part of Indochina which is, well, Indian and Chinese. WhatIsBusan (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, no. Indochina is a distinct term created for distinct reasons with imo much less actual cultural meaning, and includes countries that are never considered part of the Sinosphere, like Thailand. Remsense 05:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

WhatIsBusan -- Indochina is a region which was broadly influenced by both Indian and Chinese civilizations, but some parts of it were more influenced by Indian civilization (roughly those areas where the language is written with an Indic-type alphabet), while Vietnam was more influence by Chinese civilization (it transitioned from Chinese and pseudo-Chinese characters straight to the Latin alphabet)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

(Completely tangential, but each time you comment below me, it seems to remove the 留 carrying a link to my talk page from my signature, see the previous diffs—if you have no idea it's not a big deal, but if you do know I'm curious why that could be?) Remsense留 03:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@WhatIsBusan Indochina is only the name for a region in between China and India. The name has nothing to do about the culture. Lachy70 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The same philosophy can apply to the idea of Sinosphere. It is nothing more than areas which have been affected by Chinese culture, and not inherently a sphere of influence or similar cultures. Japan in particular has very little influence from Chinese culture nowadays for example yet it is listed under the Sinosphere. It seems to be more akin to areas where Chinese characters are used more than anything. WhatIsBusan (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of WP:IDHT. Qiushufang (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This might be a good read about established ideas on Indochina:

https://archive.org/details/houghtonmifflind00houg

I am not doubting that Vietnam and Japan have had influences from China, but why that would constitute a cultural sphere is another issue. Could you not argue that South Korea was part of the Americosphere due to the influence of American pop culture and politico-military on the country?

Maybe replacing the term "sphere" with the idea of areas/regions where Chinese culture can be found might be a good idea.

The original term in the Japanese language referred to the etymological meaning of "culture" in the Chinese characters and infers the idea of literary culture derived from regions that used Chinese characters, whereas Sinopshere in the western world has become to mean something more broad that seems to infer more hegemonic cultural influences which does not seem to be correct. WhatIsBusan (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, Indochina and the Sinosphere are distinct concepts created for different purposes. The "Sinosphere" is an established concept with an established definition in sources, we are not allowed to tamper with a concept because we unilaterally think it's unneeded or inadequate. This would be totally useless to people actually trying to use the encyclopedia to do research. Genuinely, if you do not find the concept compelling, you should spend time improving other articles that better reflect categories that make sense. Remsense留 11:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

All the common complaint sections share the same basic theme whether it's Vietnam or Japan or Korea. The complaint invariably circles back to not wanting to be part of a category that they consider China to be dominant in, and the arguments are based on that conception rather than what Sinosphere actually means. The premise of Sinosphere presented in their arguments is a make belief version that they have already convinced themselves of. Nothing in the article states that Sinosphere means "China dominates X country" or "modern X country's culture predominantly comes from China" yet we are arguing with the same statement over and over again. Qiushufang (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I think you're starting out with an assumption that this is somehow inherently a game of possession and territorial stakes, which is nonsense. It's somewhat obtuse to draw that thick a line between "national entities" and "civilizations" or "cultures", they are concepts which influence each other.

What, specifically, do you take umbrage with in the article? It hardly mentions Tibet or Xinjiang at all, would you prefer it mention them not at all? Remsense留 20:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm critical of the tendency to see this as inherently a game of possession. Why are you objecting? The Sinosphere is partly a cultural, partly a political concept. But the reason the article (and the map) is such a mess is that some people are pushing, while others object to, the concept for nationalistic reasons.

Bathrobe (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we really disagree on much, sorry if I was overly suspicious coming out of the gate—the POV pushing you describe mutuall breeds suspicion, I suppose. Regarding the map specifically: I'm curious if you have any specific ideas as to what to do with it? I can edit SVG and can whip up anything that anyone requests. Remsense留 21:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

To explain further:

I'm aware that the concept of the Sinosphere is easy on the surface but difficult to resolve if you try to define or describe it further. It's not as straightforward, objective, or factual as it appears. Membership is conventionally confined to advanced literate cultures in powerful, modern, independent polities, like Japan, Korea, China, and Vietnam. It doesn't usually include the ethnicities of Southwest China that use Chinese characters, such as Old Zhuang script / Sawndip, because the Zhuang aren't a powerful, independent, modern polity; they are simply "a part of China", a small dependent ethnicity. Not worth considering on the same plane.

I suspect that the concept is, in part, a child of Asian nationalism reacting to Western colonialism. Why were some literate Japanese so keen to declare their membership of a shared cultural zone, even as the general trend in Japan from Meiji on was to wholeheartedly embrace Western technology and culture? Were they pushing back against the "European cultural zone" that had attained such global preeminence, by putting forward an equally valid "East Asian" cultural sphere comprising the dominant cultures of East Asia? Not to mention the infamous East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. (I don't have sources to back this up. I'm not sure there is much postmodern research that attempts to deconstruct the concept. But any dispassionate appraisal of the concept of the Sinosphere surely has to take this into account).

To turn to the map: I think it's difficult. You could create a map showing traditional "Sinosphere" territories (say, the 18 provinces of China, Japan excluding most of Hokkaido (only in the "Sinosphere" since it was settled by Japanese settlers in the 19th century), most of Vietnam (but maybe excluding the south?, which was only gradually conquered). But any map of this kind would involve some kind of "original research", which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Bathrobe (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding on what the terminology used by the Japanese is. There were referring to the sphere of Sinic culture based on literary art - think about the etymological origins of the Chinese word for culture. It is similar to the idea of Islamic sphere or Islamic world. That does not mean that a country that has been influenced by Sinic culture is exclusively part of the Sinosphere, or that it has been dominated by Sinic culture. WhatIsBusan (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the premise of the complaint here. Tibet and Xinjiang are barely mentioned if at all. Qiushufang (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about the oversimplifying map, which identifies all of China as belonging to the Sinosphere. This is inaccurate since the territory of modern China does not uniformly belong to the traditional Sinosphere.

I am equally talking about those pushing the viewpoint that Vietnam doesn't belong to the Sinosphere. (One comment even mentions Champa.) There is plenty of scholarship to show that the dominant culture of modern Vietnam has been heavily influenced by China (e.g., Vietnam and the Chinese Model by Alexander Woodside).

Bathrobe (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I am also responding to casual attempts by some editors to include Mongolia within the Sinosphere. I don't have access to the references given for these edits, but snippets in Google books taken from the pages cited don't seem to lend support to the idea that Mongolia can be considered part of a cultural "Sinosphere" in the sense that the entry is discussing. There is no denying the fact that Mongolia has historically been strongly tied to East Asia, that there has been Chinese cultural influence on the Mongols, and even that some important items of Mongolian culture, such as the Secret History of the Mongols, were written using Chinese characters for their phonetic value, but this is different from the far-reaching adoption of Chinese culture in all its aspects by Korea, Japan, and Vietnam.

Such edits seem designed to expand the Sinosphere to its largest possible extent, rather than providing a meaningful characterisation of the Sinosphere. Bathrobe (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

What about removing the map and replacing it with one of the text/character comparisons included in the body? That removes the potential anachronisms that might come out of any modern map, and provides an instant and clear example of the historical/cultural relationships. CMD (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. Qiushufang (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the infobox map is fine. It shows the modern countries where the predominant culture is descended from a sinospheric influence, not that everybody within it practices the dominant culture. If we get into historical geographical details, then wouldn't Xinjiang/Central Asia/Mongolia also be defined as once sinospheric areas due to the Liao dynasty and Western Liao? They used Chinese influenced characters. To me the map is just a simplification of what modern countries' dominant cultures are considered part of the sinosphere. Qiushufang (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that in Vietnam and Japan the predominant culture is not Sinic. In fact there are very few Sinic influences in modern-day Japan. WhatIsBusan (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Sinosphere does not describe just modern culture, so the point is moot. Someone already explained that above. And the point is arguably not true either. Around 60% of Japanese vocabulary in dictionaries is derived from Chinese called Sino-Japanese vocabulary. This is not to mention architecture, religion, dress, technology, and art, all of which have heavy Chinese influences.Qiushufang (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that architecture, religion, dress, technology and art in Japan have multiple sources and much (if not most) of it does not derive from China. For example there is very little influence of Confucianism in modern day Japanese society, and utterly no influence of Taoism. The only major hegemonic influence of China on Japan has been literary.

And this also gets into to whom many of these influences should be attributed to considering Japan has maintained close contact with both South East Asia and South Asia for the past several centuries. For example should cultural attributes that originated in China but arrived through Korea be attributed to the Sinosphere or the Hangusphere?

The original meaning of the term that is used Japanese is more close to the etymological meaning of the term "culture" in Chinese writing which refers to writing (文) more emphatically that the broader concept used in the West. It's literally referring to the idea of there being arts that can be groups together for the purpose of study in a single field (for example you can group a poem under poetry or sinic texts). WhatIsBusan (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You are operating based on your own definition of what the "Sinosphere" is, not the one we are using or the one the article is about. No one is going to be able to adequately converse with you until you start making points based on what the article actually says. Remsense留 11:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

What is your definition of Sinosphere though?

As I said the original meaning of the term that is used Japanese is more close to the etymological meaning of the term "culture" in Chinese writing which refers to writing (文) more emphatically that the broader concept used in the West. It's literally referring to the idea of there being arts that can be groups together for the purpose of study in a single field (for example you can group a poem under poetry or sinic texts). WhatIsBusan (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The one attested by all the sources under the article that understand 'culture' in a particular, perhaps problematic sense. I don't get to decide what 'Sinosphere' has meant to English speakers—if it means something distinct in another language, that could be worth writing in a section in the article about. Remsense留 11:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

== "Vietnam is not East Asian" ==

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tibetan_calligraphy&diff=prev&oldid=886213766
  • At "Tibetan calligraphy" they removed specific mentions to China, Japan, and Korea and replaced it with "other East Asian calligraphic traditions" removing Tibet from being its own thing and placing it into the "East Asian" sphere, basically making it about geography rather than culture.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ink_brush&diff=prev&oldid=886213453
  • As early as 2019 they removed "CJKV" with "CJK" and removed references to Vietnam from articles.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nine-tailed_fox&diff=prev&oldid=886214492
  • Vietnam here was removed because it came from a college freshman, but the motivation doesn't seem to be that it's poorly sourced (as a better source was simply needed), only that it mentioned Vietnam (as their other edits will show).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_culture&diff=prev&oldid=886218574
  • Here they removed any mentions of Vietnam from the article and replaced it with "East Asian" largely to imply that Chinese culture never influenced Vietnam, also notice the random removal of Vietnamese terms.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_studies&diff=prev&oldid=887318951
  • Not directly related to Vietnam, but they removed references to broader Asian culture as "redundant".

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_East_Asia&diff=prev&oldid=893990762
  • Apparently even "some scholars" believing Vietnam to be a part of the East Asian cultural sphere is offensive. From 29 September 2019 their editing stops but is resumed on 1 September 2022 almost immediately pushing the same POV.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CJK_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1127481673

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horizontal_and_vertical_writing_in_East_Asian_scripts&diff=prev&oldid=1127482056

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Asian_hip-and-gable_roof&diff=prev&oldid=1127482533
  • This type of roof design is literally omnipresent in Vietnam, yet Chinese influence was apparently not greater than in India or Sri Lanka...

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seal_(East_Asia)&diff=prev&oldid=1127482952

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sino-Xenic_pronunciations&diff=prev&oldid=1127483211

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_East_Asia&diff=prev&oldid=1127483801
  • Also, feel free to remove reliable and scholarly sources whenever it doesn't fit your narrative...

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calligraphy&diff=prev&oldid=1127485329

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Treasures_of_the_Study&diff=prev&oldid=1127485078
  • Removing sourced content and the source itself and then writing "Not reflective of East Asian context of article", thankfully this was reverted, but a lot of similar vandalism done by them isn't.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ink_brush&diff=prev&oldid=1127485258
  • "Not reflective of East Asian context of article".

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ink_brush&diff=prev&oldid=1127485291
  • "Not reflective of East Asian context of article".

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanging_scroll&diff=prev&oldid=1127485916
  • "Not reflective of East Asian context of article" / "Not reflective of article with respect to East Asian artistic context".

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_East_Asia&diff=prev&oldid=1151415604
  • But this also seems to be a broader push by them to remove any references to anything they perceive as "Southeast Asian" to be removed from "East Asian" articles.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/DelusionalThomaz515610&target=DelusionalThomaz515610&dir=prev&offset=20230423215241
  • April 2023 also saw them sweep through several articles to remove any references to Vietnam and the Vietnamese language.

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

Yes, I agree, his reasoning for removal of content do not justify his actions. He is clearly pushing a POV. Most of his removals claim that Vietnamese is irreverent to Sinosphere even though many sources have stated that Vietnam has tremendous Chinese cultural influence.

I am not particular active on some of these articles, but I did try to revert most of his changes when applicable. Lachy70 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Their argument is that historical Chinese influence in Vietnam is "irrelevant" because of geography, but they themselves define this geography which is clearly vandalism, unfortunately I am not allowed to report vandalism so I often see vandals on my watchlist that I can't do anything about.
Anyhow, I saw the amazing articles you wrote about those books about Vietnamese culture, I am looking forward to see more of your creations in the future. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

END QUOTE.

Copied the entire thing for context.

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

• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/johs.12363

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

I forgot to add to the above that they are not the only user doing that, user "Laska666" (a Champa nationalist) wrote a large number of articles and content expansions that tried to minimise Chinese influence in Vietnam and deliberately tried to remove references to Chinese influence in Vietnam. The motivations of these people are very wide and diverse, but the result is the same, Vietnam is seen as "the other". Another great example is this rant on this very talk page. The talking points from this diatribe are also found in Korean nationalist historiography, particularly North Korean historiography.

TL;DR: I am proposing to change "East Asian" to "Sinitic" in related articles because people keep misusing "East Asian" to exclude Vietnam, even if "East Asia and Vietnam" was being used. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I am for this change although it will likely raise concerns similar to the ones here over the name change. To a laymen's eyes, the difference between Sinitic, Sinosphere or any of the other words with the Sin- prefix may be moot. I am sure they are aware of what was meant in the first place when they erased Vietnam from the "East Asian+" category and will do the same even more so with the Sinitic label. Qiushufang (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems like little momentum arose from this proposal. I agree with it, and I'll be trying to get momentum for change on other pages. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I opened a move discussion on Talk:Seal (East Asia)#Requested move 3 July 2024 -> "Seals in the Sinosphere". Invite others to participate in it.

This page isn't alone though; there's more pages that use "East Asia" when they should be using "Sinosphere" or some similar term. For example, East Asian age reckoning; Vietnam use(s/d) the age reckoning, so "East Asia" isn't strictly correct. I'll be keeping an eye out for more pages like this.

Depending on how the seal move discussion goes, I'll consider opening move discussions on other pages that similarly leave out Vietnam. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's difficult: while the broadest audience may or may not include or exclude Vietnam when they hear "East Asia", "Sinosphere" is essentially a technical term, so I pause when adopting it systematically in all articles, even if it is more accurate. As one may imagine, there's considerable reservations about the term in some scholarship also, but in my personal opinion it is very difficult to have a term that both accurately identifies the origin and largest "constituent" of a cultural region, while adequately communicating the cosmopolitan and multifaceted nature of said cultural region: I think "Sinosphere" is about the best we've done so far, as "sino-" correctly identifies the particular place of China but omits much of the lexical assumption one might include when hearing "Chinese" as such (e.g. specific ethnic, national, or linguistic character)

That is to say, replacing "East Asia" with "Sinosphere" in titles essentially prioritizes precision over recognizability and naturalness per the naming convention criteria: I'm fine with that, but we should be clear that that's our priority here. Remsense诉 16:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with your take and well articulated, thanks. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, both Culture of East Asia and East Asian cultural sphere redirect to this page, but this page is only narrowly focused on Chinese cultural elements that are found throughout East Asia, rather than giving a proper understanding of all relevant cultural elements (such as Western-origin elements). GreekApple123 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Right—so what is being disambiguated? If I typed in those things and got here, there's no confusion at any point. If anything, you'd want to retarget the redirect. Remsense ‥ 论 19:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone ahead and retargeted the redirects. Thanks GreekApple123 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)