![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
For those that are interested, I created a Cultures of the World stub that breaksdown the world into what I hope are more natural groupings. I think this could be a good catalogue for the cultures of the world.-- Culturesoftheworld 18:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly believe that this article should be deleted. There is nothing unifying about the cultures of the Asian continent, which spans from Israel to Afghanistan to Taiwan. You could go on and try to stuff all the cultures in here, but that doesn't make it "culture of Asia". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 ( talk • contribs) .
What you're saying doesn't make sense. If you're basing the idea of a culture of Asia on some religious book, then you've made a big mistake. There are a lot of interesting cultures within the umbrella of this so-called culture of Asia, but there are a bunch in many other parts of the world as well. The very existence of this idea "culture of Asia" is so unsteady and weak that unless there could be significant references and sources, it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 ( talk • contribs) .
Your example "History of the World", although clever, is illogical. A comprehensive overview of all cultures is logical. An article on East Asian culture is logical. An article on European culture is logical. There is no natural unity in "Culture of Asia". That's the problem. Respond to my "Culture of the Southern Hemisphere" grouping then. Culture of Asia is just as ridiculous. You might say, oh well, there's this fairly weak geographical concept that some people in the world with a particular point of view put together, so let's write a CULTURE article about it? That makes no sense. Why not a "Culture of Countries touching the Pacific Ocean" We can create tons and tons of groupings, but why? It only makes sense when there's been flow between them or they've affected each other or they are near each other. What's the flight time from Jerusalem to Tokyo? 18 hours? More? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 ( talk • contribs) .
We're not here to simply reinforce popular misconceptions. That's why people come here and read about it. We're not here to give them what the expect. We're here to be informative. Thus, as I proposed, we can provide summaries of various regions that actually do have some kind of conventionally recognized grouping to them (i.e. Central Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, etc). without trying to create some kind of Culture of Asia article. We can provide some info and redirect them to where they should be going. BTW, as you see from past conversations, at least Russia and Japan, both countries with huge huge English reading populations, do not agree with what you call "conventional". The so-called popular misconception isn't even that popular if you're talking about the real English reading population. Further, I can think of several American schools that don't agree with you. It might be true of 14 year-old boy in the Yukon territory (are you actually familiar with the Yukon territory or are you pulling that out of thin air?) thinks of Asia as Eurasia minus Europe, but there are many better educated English speakers that would disagree. 61.59.83.208 09:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be called Cultures of Asia instead? Asia doesn't have a unifying culture. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Let's go for accuracy; any misunderstandings will be cleared up by a redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 ( talk • contribs) .
Given the vagueness of what should be included in Asia and the lack of unity of the article, I propose that Culture of Asia be turned into a regional redirect page, meaning we could have summaries of East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Central Asia, maybe a short section on each, and then redirect the overall page. There should not be an attempt to unify this data however, as you're trying to create something that's not there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 ( talk • contribs) .
I also want to point out that the current direction of this article is unsustainable. I edited out garbage like "brilliant light" of the religions in Asia and "glorious civilizations". If this is merely a catalogue of cultures on the so-called "Asia continent", then what is that kind of stuff doing in here? It seems someone is trying to promote Asia as some great unify really cool super duper place. Please also define Asia as well in your comments on this proposal. 61.59.83.208 09:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I would request the anonymous participant/s to at least sign their comments even anonymously, as this shall be helpful and wastage of time shall be avoided – one should remember that we are participating into a project to create and build the best encyclopedia in the world, and not stealthily coming here, saying something and vanishing. By the way, instead of participating in the conversation, I wasted much time figuring out what my anonymous friend had said so far, and where he had placed his comments. I fully endorse the views of Quadell and all others for signing their comments. All users, registered and unregistered are expected to sign the comments, unless they are very new users. Right now, I have not much to say, except that culture is not a commodity or a geographical entity like rivers, etc., and require a different treatment in encyclopedic as well as other writings. It is a good idea to read and comprehend the concept of Culture- by reading our article on Culture, as also some good books on the subject. -- Bhadani 07:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if I believe if my identity is relevant, and I'm wary of being associated with anything. I want my ideas to stand rationally for themselves. However, for the purposes of the discussion on this page, I'll sign. But I don't think it's so necessary. Wikipedia is open to everyone, not people that contribute a lot and "level up" for having done a ton of little custodial edits here and there. I question the logical abilities of a lot of admins around here or people that use their reputations as weight to say that there contributions are better. 61.59.83.208 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Should we merge the two? Or at least make them related, or subcategories, or something? There is a lot of overlap. - Moonstone 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I saw all the edits since the initiation of the article, and found the interest of certain editors highly amusing, especially those who came to talk about the page anonymously or who became registered users to contribute here. I believe in the collaboration in the true sense, and I am sure that we have come here to add value to wikipedia. This is an important topic of wikipedia, and requires contribution from all possible sources. I wish each one around here a happy new year. -- Bhadani 15:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think article should contain reference to all the religions which have originated in Asia. I think the article should continue to have these references: " Zoroastrianism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism originated in the Middle East." Actually, Middle East is a part of Asia. It may be reworded like "in the regions of Asia called Middle East" or in a slightly better way. -- Bhadani 14:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Would putting Middle Eastern culture in Culture of the Middle East be a good idea? Some consider the Middle East part of southwest Asia, but cultually the two regions are very different. Comments? 15:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As per the above discussion and the disambiguation at the top of the article, Middle East material has been removed. Please add to the appropriate page.
Omitting the Middle East is really racist of yu, Bhadani, I can imagine you as an ignorant little Hindu. Southwest Asia is part of Asia, hence it is called (Southwest ASIA!!!!) Their should be a section in the article called Southwest Asia (not Middle East as that includes North Africa). Learn geography before you act like a racist imbecile!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.229.181 ( talk) 12:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Bhandani, let us talk about this rationally, like you have before. The Middle East is a term that shoudln to be used any more anyway, the term Far East has faded out and has been replaced by Eastern Asia as it is Eurocentric. However, the Middle East fro now can refer to the North Africa and WQestern Asia as it defines the Islamic world. However in North America, there can be central america aswell. So Middle East is not separate. West Asia is a part of Asia. I find it quite funny that you want to omit West Asia (or Middle Eas) after all your justification of having the Culture of asia page. When someone was saying that the cultures are very different you said we should have the page and now you're saying that middle east is differentit won't be counted. South asia and east asia are VERY different but it's being grouped in asia, west asia has always been asia. In fact, the term asia was invented for Western asia by the Greeks so that's quite hysterical. Jordanian, syrian etc are asians, in america they still have a very silly view that indians and chinese are only asians, that is ridiculous, even you have in your mind asians, arabs, africans etc. It is not like that there are three many cultures in asia:Chinese, Indiand AND Arabian, accept it. Imzy ( talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added sections for Southeast Asia, West Asia dn Central Asia. Imzy ( talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a little irritating to have my material deleted when, clearly, the map on the top of the page includes the Middle East. It has the whole Arabian pennisula and Turkey/Iran/Iraq are clearly marked in green. -- Calan 10:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Music section perhpas require a bit of re-arrangemnt, as the present positioning is affecting the look of the article. May be as and when more contents come - they may look fine. -- Bhadani 14:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion order of sections require to be changed for logical flow. I will suggest an order - other interested editors are also requested suggest. -- Bhadani 17:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
How do I put pictures on wikipedia? It's really important, i want to add a picture for west asia and central asia. Imzy ( talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
For those that are interested, I created a Cultures of the World stub that breaksdown the world into what I hope are more natural groupings. I think this could be a good catalogue for the cultures of the world.-- Culturesoftheworld 18:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly believe that this article should be deleted. There is nothing unifying about the cultures of the Asian continent, which spans from Israel to Afghanistan to Taiwan. You could go on and try to stuff all the cultures in here, but that doesn't make it "culture of Asia". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 ( talk • contribs) .
What you're saying doesn't make sense. If you're basing the idea of a culture of Asia on some religious book, then you've made a big mistake. There are a lot of interesting cultures within the umbrella of this so-called culture of Asia, but there are a bunch in many other parts of the world as well. The very existence of this idea "culture of Asia" is so unsteady and weak that unless there could be significant references and sources, it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 ( talk • contribs) .
Your example "History of the World", although clever, is illogical. A comprehensive overview of all cultures is logical. An article on East Asian culture is logical. An article on European culture is logical. There is no natural unity in "Culture of Asia". That's the problem. Respond to my "Culture of the Southern Hemisphere" grouping then. Culture of Asia is just as ridiculous. You might say, oh well, there's this fairly weak geographical concept that some people in the world with a particular point of view put together, so let's write a CULTURE article about it? That makes no sense. Why not a "Culture of Countries touching the Pacific Ocean" We can create tons and tons of groupings, but why? It only makes sense when there's been flow between them or they've affected each other or they are near each other. What's the flight time from Jerusalem to Tokyo? 18 hours? More? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 ( talk • contribs) .
We're not here to simply reinforce popular misconceptions. That's why people come here and read about it. We're not here to give them what the expect. We're here to be informative. Thus, as I proposed, we can provide summaries of various regions that actually do have some kind of conventionally recognized grouping to them (i.e. Central Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, etc). without trying to create some kind of Culture of Asia article. We can provide some info and redirect them to where they should be going. BTW, as you see from past conversations, at least Russia and Japan, both countries with huge huge English reading populations, do not agree with what you call "conventional". The so-called popular misconception isn't even that popular if you're talking about the real English reading population. Further, I can think of several American schools that don't agree with you. It might be true of 14 year-old boy in the Yukon territory (are you actually familiar with the Yukon territory or are you pulling that out of thin air?) thinks of Asia as Eurasia minus Europe, but there are many better educated English speakers that would disagree. 61.59.83.208 09:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be called Cultures of Asia instead? Asia doesn't have a unifying culture. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Let's go for accuracy; any misunderstandings will be cleared up by a redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 ( talk • contribs) .
Given the vagueness of what should be included in Asia and the lack of unity of the article, I propose that Culture of Asia be turned into a regional redirect page, meaning we could have summaries of East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Central Asia, maybe a short section on each, and then redirect the overall page. There should not be an attempt to unify this data however, as you're trying to create something that's not there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.83.208 ( talk • contribs) .
I also want to point out that the current direction of this article is unsustainable. I edited out garbage like "brilliant light" of the religions in Asia and "glorious civilizations". If this is merely a catalogue of cultures on the so-called "Asia continent", then what is that kind of stuff doing in here? It seems someone is trying to promote Asia as some great unify really cool super duper place. Please also define Asia as well in your comments on this proposal. 61.59.83.208 09:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I would request the anonymous participant/s to at least sign their comments even anonymously, as this shall be helpful and wastage of time shall be avoided – one should remember that we are participating into a project to create and build the best encyclopedia in the world, and not stealthily coming here, saying something and vanishing. By the way, instead of participating in the conversation, I wasted much time figuring out what my anonymous friend had said so far, and where he had placed his comments. I fully endorse the views of Quadell and all others for signing their comments. All users, registered and unregistered are expected to sign the comments, unless they are very new users. Right now, I have not much to say, except that culture is not a commodity or a geographical entity like rivers, etc., and require a different treatment in encyclopedic as well as other writings. It is a good idea to read and comprehend the concept of Culture- by reading our article on Culture, as also some good books on the subject. -- Bhadani 07:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if I believe if my identity is relevant, and I'm wary of being associated with anything. I want my ideas to stand rationally for themselves. However, for the purposes of the discussion on this page, I'll sign. But I don't think it's so necessary. Wikipedia is open to everyone, not people that contribute a lot and "level up" for having done a ton of little custodial edits here and there. I question the logical abilities of a lot of admins around here or people that use their reputations as weight to say that there contributions are better. 61.59.83.208 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Should we merge the two? Or at least make them related, or subcategories, or something? There is a lot of overlap. - Moonstone 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I saw all the edits since the initiation of the article, and found the interest of certain editors highly amusing, especially those who came to talk about the page anonymously or who became registered users to contribute here. I believe in the collaboration in the true sense, and I am sure that we have come here to add value to wikipedia. This is an important topic of wikipedia, and requires contribution from all possible sources. I wish each one around here a happy new year. -- Bhadani 15:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think article should contain reference to all the religions which have originated in Asia. I think the article should continue to have these references: " Zoroastrianism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism originated in the Middle East." Actually, Middle East is a part of Asia. It may be reworded like "in the regions of Asia called Middle East" or in a slightly better way. -- Bhadani 14:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Would putting Middle Eastern culture in Culture of the Middle East be a good idea? Some consider the Middle East part of southwest Asia, but cultually the two regions are very different. Comments? 15:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As per the above discussion and the disambiguation at the top of the article, Middle East material has been removed. Please add to the appropriate page.
Omitting the Middle East is really racist of yu, Bhadani, I can imagine you as an ignorant little Hindu. Southwest Asia is part of Asia, hence it is called (Southwest ASIA!!!!) Their should be a section in the article called Southwest Asia (not Middle East as that includes North Africa). Learn geography before you act like a racist imbecile!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.229.181 ( talk) 12:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Bhandani, let us talk about this rationally, like you have before. The Middle East is a term that shoudln to be used any more anyway, the term Far East has faded out and has been replaced by Eastern Asia as it is Eurocentric. However, the Middle East fro now can refer to the North Africa and WQestern Asia as it defines the Islamic world. However in North America, there can be central america aswell. So Middle East is not separate. West Asia is a part of Asia. I find it quite funny that you want to omit West Asia (or Middle Eas) after all your justification of having the Culture of asia page. When someone was saying that the cultures are very different you said we should have the page and now you're saying that middle east is differentit won't be counted. South asia and east asia are VERY different but it's being grouped in asia, west asia has always been asia. In fact, the term asia was invented for Western asia by the Greeks so that's quite hysterical. Jordanian, syrian etc are asians, in america they still have a very silly view that indians and chinese are only asians, that is ridiculous, even you have in your mind asians, arabs, africans etc. It is not like that there are three many cultures in asia:Chinese, Indiand AND Arabian, accept it. Imzy ( talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added sections for Southeast Asia, West Asia dn Central Asia. Imzy ( talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a little irritating to have my material deleted when, clearly, the map on the top of the page includes the Middle East. It has the whole Arabian pennisula and Turkey/Iran/Iraq are clearly marked in green. -- Calan 10:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Music section perhpas require a bit of re-arrangemnt, as the present positioning is affecting the look of the article. May be as and when more contents come - they may look fine. -- Bhadani 14:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion order of sections require to be changed for logical flow. I will suggest an order - other interested editors are also requested suggest. -- Bhadani 17:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
How do I put pictures on wikipedia? It's really important, i want to add a picture for west asia and central asia. Imzy ( talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)