This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It's a descriptive title. I agree it's wordy, but it's hard to find a clear commonly used name for this topic. "Chinese literary sphere" doesn't seem to be widely used, and when it is often refers to modern Chinese literature. "Sinosphere" and "Sinic world" are vague and ambiguous. "Chinese-character culture sphere" is fairly precise, but the emphasis on characters is too narrow. "Hanzi cultural sphere" isn't used in English. Kanguole 11:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
All three of those authors distance themselves from the phrase by enclosing it in quotation marks. The first two describe it as used by cultural nationalists. Kanguole 23:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
All three of those authors distance themselves from the phrase by enclosing it in quotation marks. Is there any evidence of this? Using quotations for direct translations is common practice. And the first two describe it as a concept used by cultural nationalists. They make no mention of their opinions on using the direct translation as a term for the concept. Among English sources, the direct translation is still the most WP:COMMONNAME name.--Ross Monroe (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Putting it in quotation marks means that they are not using the term themselves, but discussing others' use of it or the Chinese or Japanese forms. Kanguole 22:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Within the context of the book, the quotes are used to indicate a gloss and are not scare quotes. Notice in the first book that quotes are used for other glosses too, like "characters-focused method" on page 101. What it shows is that this is the most common translation for the Chinese and Japanese concept, and thus the WP:COMMONNAME. "Adoption of Chinese literary culture" is too wordy and not widely used.--Ross Monroe (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
COMMONNAME refers to usage of a name in English. Giving a translation of a foreign-language usage is a different thing, as is describing someone else's use of a term. When an author says "the currently imagined 'Chinese character cultural sphere' (hanzi wenhuaquan)" or "For those in the Research Center on Japanese Culture in the University of Hangzhou, research on old Chinese texts that have survived in Japan (and Korea as well) is supposed to bring about a renewed understanding of how 'the Chinese-Character Cultural Sphere' was formed and maintained", they are not using the term themselves.
I haven't claimed that the current title is a common name, but rather that the topic does not have a clear common name, and that therefore the other factors discussed in WP:TITLE must be considered and a descriptive name is justified. The vagueness of "Chinese character cultural sphere" is illustrated by the fact that many of your links are about something else, as I've mentioned below. Kanguole 12:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I object to the "descriptive" label. What exactly does a literary culture constitute? Does it include social structures, philosophy, religion or politics? All four have historically been shared by East Asian countries. "Adoption of Chinese literary culture" isn't descriptive or accurate, and its needlessly wordy to boot. I strongly dislike the current title, and would prefer any of the alternatives, either those suggested here or on Talk:Sinosphere#Does WP give the wrong "Sinosphere" definition?.--Ross Monroe (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It certainly includes Confucian moral teaching, philosophy, Buddhism, government institutions and laws (not sure what "politics" refers to here). Kanguole 14:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the culture title is that the "literary" in "Chinese literary culture" misleadingly implies that the article is only about literature. If this article really is about East Asian culture in its entirety, then the "literary" descriptor isn't necessary. What is your opinion on renaming this article to "Adoption of Chinese culture" instead of "Adoption of Chinese literary culture"? That title is more accurate and succinct.--Ross Monroe (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
"Literary" can also refer more broadly to writing, as in Literary Chinese, and that's the sense intended here. It serves to limit the scope of the article to the large-scale historical borrowing by Vietnam, Korea and Japan, which was centred around their adoption of Literary Chinese. But the large-scale nature of the borrowing is the key discriminator, and perhaps "adoption" expresses that adequately. So yes, "adoption of Chinese culture" might be a reasonable descriptive title; certainly better than the "sphere" titles with their ambiguity and controversial ideological baggage. Kanguole 09:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The historical process that is the topic of this article does not have a common name. Sources that discuss it (such as those cited in the article) use descriptive titles like "wholesale/extensive/methodical adoption/borrowing of Chinese culture/writing/institutions", and we should too. "Chinese character cultural sphere" is a vague term, and focusses on the characters. Many of the results of the above searches are not examples of usage, but rather people discussing others' use of it, or of Kanji bunka-ken or Hànzì wénhuà quān. For many of those that do use it, it refers to current use of characters in writing Chinese, (Korean?) and Japanese, and thus excludes Vietnam but includes Singapore. For example, the majority of the Google Scholar hits in the above search are references to a paper on a quite different topic from this article. Kanguole 22:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I support the change from Adoption of Chinese literary culture to Chinese character cultural sphere for its better correspondence to the original term 漢字文化圈. However, "literary" is a more precise word over "character" in the way that the concept 漢字文化圈 includes not only Chinese characters but also Classical Chinese. In addition to that, 漢字文化圈 also has many characteristics exclusive to Chinese characters alone. In this case, Chinese literary culture would represent a more complete image of the concept, but Adoption of Chinese literary culture is more of a phrase than a term, so there is definitely some room left for changes. Perhaps Chinese literary cultural sphere or simply Chinese literary culture might be better terms? --N6EpBa7Q (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I really dislike the "Chinese literary culture" title. It has too much of pro-China focus. I think "Chinese characters" are more neutral.--Ross Monroe (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
When did "Sinophere" become synonymous with Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area? I always understood the area bispherically to include both the Sinosphere and Indosphere, but the article lead currently says, "James Matisoff referred to this area as the "Sinosphere", contrasted with the "Indosphere"." The cited Matisoff (1991, 486) reference with the "Cisyangtzeana" quote doesn't support this claim, as the previous page explains,
It is convenient to refer to the Chinese and Indian spheres of cultural influence as the "Sinosphere" and the "Indosphere"(146). Some languages and cultures are firmly in one or the other (e.g. the Munda and Khasi branches of Austroasiatic and the Kamarupan branch of TB are Indospheric; while the Hmong-Mien family, the Kam-Sui branch of Kadai, the Loloish branch of TB, and the Viet-Muong branch of Mon-Khmer are Sinospheric). Others (e.g. Thai and Tibetan) have been influenced by both Chinese and Indian culture at different historical periods. Still other linguistic communities are so remote geographically that they have escaped significant influence from either cultural tradition (e.g. the Aslian branch of Mon-Khmer in Malaya, or the Nicobarese branch in the Nicobar Islands of the Indian Ocean). (1991, 485)
Per WP:NOTDICT, we should have articles about topics, not terms. The topic of this article is a historical process that began early in the current era and ended around the end of the 19th century. The phrase "Chinese cultural sphere" is ambiguous, and the use of it and similar terms to extrapolate that historical process into the present is controversial. Vague definitions make for unfocussed articles – the current Chinese cultural sphere article (formerly "Sinosphere") contains no unique content worth merging anywhere. Kanguole 13:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that the term "Sinosphere" is vague because of its use in both linguistics and cultural studies, the term "Chinese cultural sphere" is no more ambiguous than the English equivalent "Anglosphere." And per WP:N the quality of the current Chinese cultural sphere/previous Sinosphere article has no effect on its notability as an academic subject. There have been journal articles devoted entirely to the topic of the Chinese cultural sphere or so-called "Sinic World", like this article published in Foreign Affairs.--Ross Monroe (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I don't think we should start with terms, whether in English, Japanese or Chinese; we should start by identifying and writing about topics, and then find good names for them. As you mention above, "character" names miss the core of this topic (and the first two above are new coinages that no-one uses). They are also often used to talk about a current situation, the use of characters in several countries, while the topic here is something that happened in the past. The former is a residual effect of the latter, a shadow of the real topic. Another phrase I've come across is "interliterary community of East Asia" or similar. It seems to come from a Slovak school of literary criticism, but has had some wider use, and is fairly specific. Kanguole 13:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't like sinographosphere, which is way too much of a mouthful, and isn't commonly used. I would not object to using "interliterary community of East Asia" or "East Asian interliterary community". Do you have the source that mentions it?--Ross Monroe (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Variations on this term seem to have been coined by Marián Gálik (see the Further reading section) and picked up by a few other authors, e.g. . It covers the right time period, but unfortunately "interliterary" isn't really English. Kanguole 00:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
How about "East Asian literary culture"? No neologisms in there.---Ross Monroe (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
That could be interpreted quite broadly, and encompass a lot more than this topic. Kanguole 13:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"Chinese literary culture in East Asia"? That limits it to just Chinese literary culture.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
True, but it lacks the historical focus. (and it's no shorter than the title you're complaining about) Kanguole 01:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)