Jump to content

Talk:Asia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 60.234.214.63 (talk) at 07:39, 10 May 2013 (→‎Oceania: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:VA

Article Collaboration and Improvement DriveThis article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 20, 2005.
WikiProject iconAsia C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGeography C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template:WP1.0

{{edit semi-protected}}

Has someone checked the population densities?

The population density for Russia is incorrect. It should be 8.3 given the numbers included in the table. This would also bring it into agreement with the global geography entry which lists a population density for Russia of 8.3. I haven't had a chance to check the other numbers, someone probably ought to.


Georgia

I think it is time to remove Georgia (country) from this honorable list of Asian countries as majority of its population does not consider itself Asian and the International Community recognizes it as European.[1]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://conference.asria.org/2011/images/ASrIA_Impax_Report_web.pdf. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Asia section

Realhistorybuff (talk · contribs) disruption again

Guys, we need to have a serious discussion regarding the constant Chinese POV pushing in this section. China was never the wealthiest civilization at any point of time in history. The source I have used is from a reputed economic historian named Angus Maddison, who graduated from The University of Cambridge - one of the best universities in the world!

117.192.64.22 (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, it appears that I've reverted your edit a bit prematurely, sorry for that. To be honest, I couldn't believe that such exact numbers for the GDP in the first to tenth centuries exist. I've now done some research and stand corrected. Maybe the link to the table which was compiled on the basis of Maddison's work and which I've just added to the article could help to avoid further misunderstandings. Best regards --Phileasson (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, the part on China, which you deleted, should also be mentioned in the article. It appears to be well sourced and does not contradict the statements made before. I hope you'll agree with me on that point. --Phileasson (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"AREA SOUTH OF THE AEGEAN"- A.S.i.A.

This encyclopedia entry is pretty dumb and ill informed about a very basic well documented topic. Although Wikipedia is useful sometimes, I'm starting to believe that the mentality or agenda for some of those who run it is one of true or purposeful ignorance.

It is very clear cut that the term "Asia" is the latinized translation of the Greek reference to Micro-asia, the smaller land mass that begins the entire continent of Asia as a whole continent when coming from the Aegean. This article even makes reference to this (three continent model)! Why are there so many contradictions on the entire Wikipedia website? (and on different versions[languages])

There is no uncertainty about the history, it is documented throughout almost every war or conquest that has occurred through recorded history. The fundamental information is just ignored or disregarded.

When ships whether Greek, Persian, Roman, Phoenician, etc. set sail, they were either navigated from or to the plotted path south of the Aegean toward land/port.

The etymology comes from a Greek word origin which is then flipped around when translated into to Latin. I would assume any linguist of moderate training would know this.

All the detractors of Hellenic civilization need to give up maligning what is already established historical fact. There will never be alternate explanations to replace written human history, disproving the impact of the legacy of Western Civilization as it has developed to date.

History cannot be revised and replaced with fantasy and those attempt to promote rhetoric and politics while rewriting the past will lose and look foolish in the eyes of anyone that is educated.

Asia, it's just obvious, it is on all the maps after all.

I just wanted read about some further details on the subject of Asia. I just get frustrated when I see this kind of stupid bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.23.125 (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Population Numbers

The estimated population of Asia at 3,879,000,000 seems low. Encarta 2009 estimated it at 4.05 billion and Wolfram estimates it at 4.33086 billion people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukemcurley (talkcontribs) 11:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Asia as a name

The Xia were the first dynasty of China before there was a China. The name has several meanings such as "Summer" or the glow from the rising and setting sun. An alternative name for the Xia was Hsia which means basically the same thing but apparently is closer to the meaning for Summer.

The Xia I realize as considered mythical or semi mythical and yet, so were the Shang for a long time and the Shang speak of the Xia preceding them.

There have been discoveries many believe prove the existence of the Xia but there's nothing concrete.

There is a theory that the name Xia wasn't a dynastic name, but the name loosely applied to all the kingdoms prior to the rise of the Shang and that it applied to all the peoples, the land and possibly a single administrative organization all the kingdoms agreed to support as a form of confederacy of sorts with the ruling Xia eventually seizing power but maybe not being linked to one specific tribe or kingdom beyond specific families of the ruling elite.

In Chinese, many words are spelled differently in regard to pronunctiation or dialect. In this regard, we know that Xia and Hsia are the same... so is it such a leap to ask if Hsia is the root origin of the word Asia since no one seems to know the origin for the word?

We know that West Europeans did in fact have contact with them as did many in the Middle East where trade with Asia might have resulted in them spelling the name as it sounded in their own language where peoples to the west of them all call the region Asia (or most do).

I don't have the links to back up what I am saying but about a year ago my interest was peaked when I was watching a television show about Asia where they presented the theory and I found several site confirming that Xia was an ancient name for Asia. Wish I could remember the keywords to rediscover those links but if any of you would like to improve the document, this could be the way to do it if no one knows the origin of the name Asia.

In this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continent_name_etymologies , we are told that Herodotus first used the word in around 440 BC long after the Xia had fallen from power but the name did survive. Ironically, it means the same thing in Greek as it does in Chinese and the origin for the name Xia precedes the Greek name by many centuries. Greeks trading with the east would have picked up the name for traders. It mentions the Hittites using the name Assuwa and the semitic Asu yet there is no mention of the most obvious possibility that traders and travelers traveling to Asia brought the name Xia / Hsia back with them pronouncing it with an accent. When you track the name back through history, you find many possibilities.

However, just because we call Nippon Japan doesn't mean the fact we imposed a western name upon Nippon is equally true of Asia as a whole.

Before you delete this, let your intellectual curiousity investigate this because the Xia / Hsia did exist long before Latin or Greek and it could simply be that the Greeks absorbed the name into their language much as we in the US have absorbed and changed many native words to Anglicized variations which are nevertheless derived from actual native linguistics rather than being a name we gave them. (Armorbeast (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The most efficient bulk transport of the ancient ages was the waterway. Clearly, the most usable route from Europe to India was the Venetian route, which led passing Cyprus to Antiochia, Aleppo, using the Euphrates to Basra, and continuing in the Persian Gulf. We need to realize that for any ancient seafarer using this route, the very first gateway to the today Asia was the Orontes River, leading to Antioch, called that time the River Axius, today, Asi River. So for a simple cause, travelers must have called Asia all those countries lying behind the Asius estuary.--Swotch (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is not just Turkey and Russia that have some european parts

it is also Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirzakhanfil (talkcontribs) 15:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Etymology section

"Etymology: Asia was originally a concept of Western civilization (Ref: TR Reid)"*

TR Reid, Confucius Lives Next Door: What living in the East teaches us about living in the west, Vintage 1999

please get this right. You can use Reid's book for postmodernist reconstruction of the "concept of Asia", but please keep it out of the etymological discussion. Reid isn't relevant to that. So please don't have the article wave its hands about how the etymology is "unknown". There is the one widely accepted etymology, Assuwa. Then there is an "alternative etymology", apparently supported by this Reid book, which at least one editor felt they needed to base this entire article on. This doesn't mean that "the etymology is unknown". This just means that no matter how established an etymology is, there will always be some less-than-notable "alternative view".

This article as it stands is far outside the acceptable bounds of WP:DUE, please keep in mind our core project guidelines regarding this sort of "alternative view" and editorializing waving-of-hands to make things look unknowable. --130.60.142.82 (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the major cities in Asia

Hello,

I am really surprised after seeing that Dhaka and Chittagong, cities of Bangladesh, are not mentioned in the list of major cities in Asia. Whereas cities like Kolkata, Manila are included. Dhaka and Chittagong have polulation of 13 million and 6 million respectively whereas Kolkata has a population of 5 million and Manila has a polulation of 1.5 million. I hope the authority will include Dhaka and Chittagong in the list of major cities in Asia.

Regards, Saiful Islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.213.178.90 (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oceania

Now you take a dig at Oceania. Oceania has never been Asia? According to who? Australasia is a common and well-known term to describe both Australia, New Zealand and all the surrouding islands from as far north as Darwin, Australia to as south west as the Chatham Islands of New Zealand and other included smaller islands. Explain yourself first before I make the edit myself.