Talk:Southeast Asia

Hong Kong

Please can someone enlighten me as to whether Hong Kong, and indeed Taiwan, are technicaly part of Southease Asia. By some definitions they are Islands and in the same region as currently listed Southeast Asian countries. Also perhaps Maccau? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.148.96 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are. HK is part of China and historically Taiwan has been (China and the ROC both claim sovereignty). I'm no expert, but it strikes me as very odd that Taiwan is a "Southeast Asian country"? Whoever edited those phrases did not seem to refer to any credible sources in particular. It looks higly doubtful and haphazard to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.187.185 (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh

I thought Bangladesh was considered as South Asia AND Southeast Asia. I have asked mebersd of my family (which are bengali therefore from bangladesh), 'What part of Asia would you consider Bangladesh to be?' and 12 out of the 13 people i asked said that Bangladesh is southeast asia. I then told them, 'Isn't Bangladesh south asia?' and all 12 replyed the same. 'It is more southeast asia but people do say it's south asia.' Overall i would say that Bangladesh should be southeast asia. but not really all that sure. Us bengali's from our own country of bangladesh say it's southeast but the west (not trying to be offensive or anything) see it as south asia. Is this just because you're trying to group us with indians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.12.178 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Politically it's generally more accepted that Bangladesh is in South Asia. Also see ASEAN, Bangladesh hasn't been included in the bloc since it isn't a Southeast Asian country. Also see CIA World Factbook and United Nations. I don't think the intention was to group Bengalis with Indians. It was probably based on cultural ties or similarites in languages/ethnic groups. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Southeast Asia#Geographical already says: "Bangladesh and the Seven Sisters in India is culturally part of Southeast Asia and sometimes considered both South Asian and Southeast Asian". It's not necessary to repeat it in the lead paragraph. 58.8.212.181 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

But if you think about it and get to know the cultures then you would notice that vietnamese and bengali culture are more similar to eachother than indian culture to bengali. Plus the bit about the CIA thing just proves my point that the west puts groups together and say its right when the people themselves tell another story. this is basically what im getting. a western source says, 'Ok from now on Phillipines will be considered as North australasia'. then a pinoy says, 'No it's part of south-east asia'. Then just going with what the westerner says. Many Bengalis say Bangladesh is southeast asia whilst western sources say its south asia. Instead of carrying this matter on, why not just edit the article about southeast asia and put 'Bangladesh is also considered part of SE Asia by the people of the country themselves others consider it South Asia.' That ASEAN article to. The southeast has 11 countries as it says in the southeast asia article. There are only 10 countries of the 11 signed to ASEAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.12.77 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

One country is still in observer status (East Timor) because it is newly formed and it's on its way to becoming a full member. So in the future, all Southeast Asian countries will be part of ASEAN. Bangladesh is part of the regional forum but not the part of the bloc (does not hold observer status like East Timor). Also about your point to the Philippines. North Australia isn't really a political region and in some instances a region called "Asia-Pacific" is used to combine the political regions of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Australia/Oceania. Also, Australia is quite far from the Philippines. You would have to go through Indonesia and Malaysia first and I'm pretty sure Indonesia and Malaysia are regarded as an Asian countries. Could you find a published or online source that supports your statements? I'd also I have to agree what 58.8.212.181, it's already mentioned in the article and repeating the information is redundant. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 18:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Why was Bangladesh removed from that little section then? I checked it out and it doesn't even say bangladesh is sometimes considered South East Asia as well as South Asia. Bangladesh is the 7th most populous country on earth and i returned from there a couple of days ago. I went for a holiday but istill asked people (in bengali) if they consider Bangladesh South or South East. Almost all said south east. I don't care about that anymore. I just want to know why it's now been taken off altogether from this article.

Removal of info

Some of the info that has been here for a long time such as the religion section was removed due to the reason WP:OTHERSTUFF. To my understanding, WP: Other stuff deals with the creation of articles (ex: because of on a country article I saw, I will create an article for a new country) and not what information or data should be included or excluded based on another article. Going on this, if we remove individual country information then we should also remove capital cities in the infobox since it doesn't really relate to Southeast Asia as a whole, languages (individual country data), and pie chart (mainly showing individual country data). All this information, although dealing with individual countries, as a whole relates to Southeast Asia because those are the countries that make up Southeast Asia. I also explained that other subregions have them such as North America, South Asia, Southwest AsiaSouth America, Europe, and Africa. So I would have to say that for consistency reasons, that the data for individual countries should be included. If we remove individual country for Southeast Asia, then we should remove the same for every subregion article. Again from WP: Other stuff, to my understanding, it doesn't explain why this should or should not be included since I saw it as reasons for creating an article. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your justification for adding it was because other pages do similar things. Would you jump off a cliff is others did it? And yes, looking at it now, the list of languages should be removed. But if your criteria for inclusion is that it relates to South East Asia, then had better copy over info from Omo sebua - and probably the full Satay article too. Indeed, the WP:OTHERSTUFF article relates to articles, but surely you can see the point. Oh, "It's been here for a long time" is almost as bad as "WP:PRECEDENCE" as a justification. Surely we don't need to repeat individual country stuff - on the the other hand, the pie chart actually is very useful as it shows SE Asia as a whole (ie, 100% of the chart) and how the parts contribute to it. --Merbabu (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

PS - i removed the list of languages per your recommendation. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well my other justification can also be seen from your second sentence as well as consistency reasons, not because if one article had it, the other article should have it. For example, every country article has an infobox and this is consistent with every country. Plus, the current data on the countries isn't a full copy of their corresponding articles, just some brief facts. There is no individual history of each country listed or individual foreign relations of each country, etc. So I don't agree with copying entire articles in full. Also, I really don't see any harm in including all this information since those countries are in SEA. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you thought about writing something about South East Asia rather than about the countries that make up South East Asia - i trust you understand the distinction. Also, the pie chart is one of the more useful things in the article - whereas the religions table by country is not useful to our understanding of SE Asia (albeit helpful if one is interested in the countries of south east asia individually). What's the point of listing the % of Buddhists in Indonesia (250m people) vs. Christmas island? A good challenge and something that would represent the topic of the article would be to represent SE Asia-wide religious composition info.--Merbabu (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point about the percent religious composition. It's completely unnecessary. I really don't know what else to write for the article other than expansion on some areas and cite some potentially controversial information. Have any other suggestions? The problem I've been having is trying to find sources that deal directly with Southeast Asia as a whole and not individual countries. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not only was the Languages section left truncated ("Official languages in bold:" followed by nothing), it relates to SEA and was the reason I wiki'd this article. It's an officious deletion, and I'm re-adding that part. --Somatosis (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Corrections

I think the first paragraph about a Chinese migration is ridiculous. Not only is there no evidence or citation included to back up these statements but recent evidence suggests a migration from India. There is also no genetic correlation with the populations of East and Southeast asia. However there is in relation to India. I suggest the first paragraph be removed until it is backed up by some concrete evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.14.210 (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well where is this recent evidence about India that you speak of? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Type in DNA confirms coastal trek into google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.14.210 (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to be a bit more specific than that. Please provide the exact link (not the google search link) so that other editors may see and determine whether the source has verifiability or validity to it. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 16:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

http://archaeogenetics.blogspot.com/2009/08/dna-confirms-coastal-trek-to-australia.html http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/07/24/2635149.htm Theres hundreds of links. I'm sure theres at least one non-bias website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.14.210 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well for one thing, the first source is exactly the same as the second source in terms of content. Secondly, blogs are not very reliable sites are generally avoided for Wikipedia. Thirdly, the Chinese migration focuses more on the Austronesian people. The ABC source discusses migrations for the aborigines. There were multiple waves of immigration to Southeast Asia. Currently, the people who are generally accepted as the most dominant group in Southeast Asia are the Austronesians. Aborigines such as the Negritos and Austronesians are not the same ethnic group. Aborigines constitute a very small percentage of the population of Southeast Asia. Britannica also accepts Chinese migration, well at least migration from Taiwan, or present day Republic of China. Britannica: History of Southeast Asia Geographically Taiwan is right by the PRC or the Chinese mainland and Britannica does also state, migrations from the Asian mainland, this most likely refers to China due to the geographical position of Taiwan.

Lastly, to refute your statement about having no genetic correlation. China has had a huge influence over Southeast Asia and thus interaction with the people of Southeast Asia. Countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have large populations of Chinese and people (Austronesians) with Chinese ancestry, so yes there is at least some genetic correlation. There might be no genetic correlation between the aborigines and East Asians, but there are genetic similarities between Austronesians and East Asians. One similarity is that they both have the Haplogroup O. These sources ISOGG on Haplogroups and University of Illinois on World Haplogroups supports genetic correlation. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The genetic correlation between East Asians(Chinese) and the Southeast asian population is due to mass migration during the last hundred years. That shouldn't be mistaken with saying that Southeast asians migrated from China as the Wikipedia page states. The data I present is also quite new so current evidence which you've shown could be quite irrelevant. My point is not to say Southeast asians migrated from china but leave it open.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RRRAD (talk • contribs) 09:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's the last thousand years when Austronesian migration began, not several hundred. The mass migrations your probably referring to is different from the Austronesian migration. This wasn't what I was talking about nor what the sources were talking about. This migration was during the trade era (dynastic China), several thousand years after the first Austronesian migrations. However, I think you're still missing the point. The data you presented is based on the first migrations of people to Southeast Asia, or the aborigines. The aborigines do not constitute the majority and are a minority in Southeast Asia. Aborigines and Austronesians are NOT the same. Several thousand years later after the aborigines migrated to SEA, migration from China (this is what the article and subsequent articles talks about), also known as the Austronesian migration, began, (this is what Britannica talks about) eventually replacing the aborigines as the dominant group. That is generally the idea or the accepted belief.

True, the aborigines were the first settlers and that's what the sources you provided pertain to, but they do not have anything to do with the Austronesians. The second wave of migration is what was being talked about. The second migration, migration from China is what propelled Southeast Asia to what we know today. Saying that there is no genetic correlation between Austronesians and East Asians like I said previously is not correct because Austronesians genetically and theoretically migrated from China and are related to East Asians to some extent. This may not be the case for the aborigines as you pointed out. But what saying is that your sources represents the majority of the people in Southeast Asia is incorrect, because again, aborigines and Austronesians are not the same. It really doesn't matter that the sources you mentioned are more recent because it pertains to a different group of people. Currently, the main concepts of the article are discussing the second waves of migrations (Austronesians) and everything after that. In other words 5000 BCE to now. Your sources pertain to migrations that happened pre-5000 BCE> Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 16:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We can agree that the aboriginals were the first settlers to arrive. If anything, can they at least be mentioned in the article or under the History of Southeast asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRRAD (talk • contribs) 10:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with adding history before Austronesian migration. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave that to someone more experienced then me. Thank you for your comments. Sorry if i came off a bit rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRRAD (talk • contribs) 13:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan, Papua/ASEAN membership as criteria?

Taiwan is in East Asia. Do we have any disagreements? If I don't see any response I'll remove the SE Asia reference. I'm personally from Taiwan and never heard any one or media say SE Asia. Also why is ASEAN membership being referenced as the criteria for being listed? We are talking about geographic location, not membership to an economic organization. Just like a European country not in the EU doesn't mean it disappeared of the face of the earth. Papua NG is on New Guinea Island like Indonesia so it should be included too --Mistakefinder (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the mentions of Taiwan being in SE Asia (and from memory I did so previously too). There are no references in the article to support this. If there are significant classifications (even if not the majority or most widely accepted) that include Taiwan as SE Asia, then let's consider that for inclusion with attribution if they come to light - but until we have that, there is no reason to mention Taiwan as part of SE Asia. --Merbabu (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

PS - surely ASEAN deserves a mention in the article, but I agree, I don't think it should be used as inclusion criteria for a country being in SE Asia (indeed, shouldn't it be the other way around ;-) ). --Merbabu (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

i agree, Taiwan is not a part of Southeast Asia--Desta Men (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

adding Economic growth period and their crisis in the economy section.

considering that Southeast Asia had fast economic growth period and their experience in the financial crisis in late 1990's, i decided to add the summary of their economic growth, crisis and recovery in the economy section,

• And, how if we add the gallery picture in the article ?? i am not planning to do that, but, if people here agree about this, we can work and add it together......, Cheer!--Desta Men (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do we want a picture gallery? --Merbabu (talk) 06:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

well, just to describe the region with the picture, as it has the large area, diverse ethnic, culture and religion..... because some people will prefer seeing the picture to reading a lot, you know, all people in all ages visit wikipedia, children or student will be more happy to read if it contains more picture..... how ?--Desta Men (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not what the criteria of what wikipedia is about - more photos - does not equal happiness - please be very careful about understanding what WP:NOT actually means SatuSuro 11:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"Pareoean"

Interested, I did a google search of "pareoean" and found that such word seems to be nonexistent. I took the liberty of removing it. Any objections? Supanorchey (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather nonsensical statement

"As of 2009, Papua New Guinea has stated that it might join ASEAN, indicating a possible switch in its geographic locale". How does joining a multinational trade/polical organisation physically relocate a whole country ? It doesn't ! Eregli bob (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD :-) --Merbabu (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Different country listings in the tables

Why are the country listings different in different sections of this page? Countries and territories has one set, religion another and languages yet another set... --Nedergard (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Zomia (geography)

I propose adding Zomia (geography) to the Geographical Mainland Southeast Asia column, but saw the editors' note there. I've already put it in the Geography see also hatnote. As it is a fairly new geographical neologism that I doubt has UN recognition, adding it at all may cause dissension, so let us reach a consensus. I'll not object if some other editor removes it from the hatnote in the mean time. --Pawyilee (talk)

Geographical map with labels missing

Is there a reason why such a map is not included in this article? Something like Image:Karte der Indochinesischen Halbinsel-en.jpg, but better. Wiki-uk (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment...

Nothing that that the article’s title is “Southeast Asia”, then the article’s scope should also therefore be Southeast Asia. Conversely, the article’s title, and hence scope, is not “Brief summary of each country in Southeast Asia”. Unfortunately much of the article is written as a brief summary of each country. I accept that it’s hard to make it about pan-SE Asia topics – it’s much easier just to summarise each country – but we really must work towards a wholistic SE Asia focus. I accept that to an extent this article will inevitably be about individual countries, but I’m suggesting in it’s current state, it’s more an individual country summary than about SE Asia. --Merbabu (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox problem

Something is broken in the Infobox. At the point where you find label8 = Languages | data8 = {{collapsible list, etc., something is wrong and the Language label does not appear in the box. Too complex for me. —Stephen (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem. Looks good without it! --Merbabu (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you look back a couple of months to when the Languages label was working correctly (here), it looked very good then, too. And, if you wanted, you could see the language names. Looked just as good as it does now, except that it actually worked. —Stephen (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A small info box is a good info box - IMO. I think it looks better now. And, no info box is a brilliant infobox.

But, I know I'm not going to win that battle. So, i note that the Europe info box works nicely and looks small and tidy. How about trying to emulate that? --Merbabu (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

All I can do with it is copy and paste. The information won’t be the same. I could copy and paste from the old infobox that worked correctly but then I would be tossing out the hard work of a lot of folks. It would be better if someone who knew how these boxes work could just fix it. It probably only needs the odd "|" or "|-" or something like that. —Stephen (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I say, do a copy and paste of the old infobox and tweak the info so it matches the current info. Then, if somone wants to insist on installing the new infobox, the onus is on them to ensure the info is current and works. Accuracy over aesthetics. Having said I don't like big infoboxes, I do like the collapsible lists. --Merbabu (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

link

http://www.indexq.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carachi (talk • contribs) 21:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Southeast Asia Montage.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Southeast Asia Montage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 7 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Official Language In Malaysia

Dont you read the laws of malaysia?MALAY is the ONLY OFFICIAL LANGUAGE of Malaysia!English is not one of it,it only a secondary languange! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qamarul Syahmi (talk • contribs) 16:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

multiple sources

Should there be 8 -10 sources for one sentence? Being well sourced is good, but it seems like some areas have too many superscripts. --RichardMills65 (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)