This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Indosphere article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Asia may be able to help! |
This should be merged with the article "Greater India".
What does Tibet, especially Yunnan region in China has anything to do with Indosphere? Is this another pathetic attempt to promote the India as a super power propaganda?
If the term "Indosphere" exists as it's self a concept, then it belongs on Wikipedia. You are an Ignoramous. 67.190.27.113 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Josh Van Maren
debate over the position of Afghanistan, Balochistan, and Tibet is taking place here Template talk:Countries of the Indosphere Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The entry on Indosphere is highly misleading. A quick check on JSTOR for academic articles mentioning the term turns up only 5 hits, all either by James Matisoff or making reference to his work, and in fact one of his articles is in the list because it references another of his own articles. He uses the term strictly to refer to areas of Southeast Asia with strong linguistic resemblances of one sort or another to Indic languages, and opposes it to the Southeast Asian areas with strong linguistic resemblances to Sinitic langages. He explicitly indicate that resemblance does not mean a genetic relationship--Vietnamese, he says, resembles Chinese in certain key ways, and so is placed in the Sinosphere, but it belongs to a completely unrelated linguistic family. Nowhere is this term or "Sinosphere" used to refer to political entities, or indeed to anything outside Southeast Asia.
There is no indication that the term "Indosphere" has any academic currency beyond Matisoff. A quick Google search provides links that mostly come right back here. Furthermore, all of the external links in the entry are either broken or bogus, leading to obviously chauvinistic diatribes (such as the webpage claiming Indian origin for Filipino culture).
This entry should either be drastically shortened to limit its scope to the linguistic term as used by Matisoff, or it should be deleted. Rikyu ( talk) 04:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Some possible refs that can be used to expand the article:
Abecedare ( talk) 18:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits, and the new map, although nicely done in the abstract, are once again spreading this page out beyond the narrow subject. "Indosphere" does not include India, Pakistan, etc. in any sense. As coined by Matisoff and used in linguistics, Indosphere refers to the languages of Southeast Asia that show the influence of Indic languages and scripts. All this other stuff, well done though it is, does not belong on the page, nor, really, should this page be considered part of some India-related wiki project. At the risk of being redundant, it's about the classification of Southeast Asian languages, and is not about South Asia. I don't won't to remove all the recent South Asian additions without discussion, but they need removing or serious rewriting. Rikyu ( talk) 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I've been talking to some anthropologists about the concept of an Indosphere at the U of Toronto and some have argued that the previous page with the map is valid, if you consider the suffix "-sphere" as pertaining to shared linguistic, religious, governmental, economic, and alphabetic heritage. This would be abstracted from the concept of the anglosphere. Just for reference, there was a previous nonsense argument that if you searched JSTOR and Google for Indosphere you could come up with nothing. First of all, Google is not a scholarly source, so I wouldn't use it. If you search for "anglosphere" in JSTOR (as of Sept 9th, 8:34 pm Eastern Time 2008) you will get only 1 hit (Past and Future Meet: Aleksandr Gorchakov and Russian Foreign PolicyPast and Future Meet: Aleksandr Gorchakov and Russian Foreign Policy), while if you search for Indosphere, you will retrieve 7 hits, some by Matisoff, but some by others (Chung, Ding) who are influenced by his work. Clearly, the JSTOR argument posed earlier is not valid. I'd also like to interject that some are apprehensive of pointing out a common link with India (particularly in Tibet, South East Asia) because of nationalism in their respective countries as well (ie. we invented everything, no outsider created our writing system, etc). I'm interested in this topic, I'll see if I can find more about it. 128.189.137.90 ( talk) 03:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted a fork of this article, which produced two articles citing the same references, but giving different definitions. The definitions given by the references are:
There is no Indosphere subgroup of the Tibeto-Burman languages, so I've modified the lead accordingly. Kanguole 00:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Sinosphere should link to East Asian cultural sphere instead of Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area. ATB Wikirictor ( talk) 16:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The article East Asian cultural sphere states, that it is the Sinosphere. There is a conflict, obviously. Wikirictor ( talk) 08:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Indospehere is part of greater india anway, there is certain overlap, all; i hd done was is inserted a map that surely pertains to both greater india and indosphere in terms of linguistic..the map goes with the explanation already exists in indospehere article and i inserted additional categories which all are part of indospehere lingusitically. so justify to me why were changes reverted. its annoying that some people do not understand the concept of collaborative incremental improvement and try to become protective and monopolize specific article. you may hv bene original writer or significnt contributors but once we write then it belongs to public and no one must monopolize or revert valid edits in such casual manner. that goes against the basic principals of incremental improvement of wikipedia. im going to restore the changes unless you can provide convincing answers why they do not overlap and how inserting the related categories or map is not valid? and why monopolize? dont discourage others work without valid reasons with filmsy subjective personal preferences. Lezela ( talk) 16:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Indosphere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.uwm.edu/~noonan/806/Enfield.Areal-SEA.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add Mongolia to the map of Indosphere. Mongolia is a country of the Indian cultural sphere as much as Tibet and Burma.
Thank you. Wikibilig ( talk) 09:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Indosphere article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Asia may be able to help! |
This should be merged with the article "Greater India".
What does Tibet, especially Yunnan region in China has anything to do with Indosphere? Is this another pathetic attempt to promote the India as a super power propaganda?
If the term "Indosphere" exists as it's self a concept, then it belongs on Wikipedia. You are an Ignoramous. 67.190.27.113 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Josh Van Maren
debate over the position of Afghanistan, Balochistan, and Tibet is taking place here Template talk:Countries of the Indosphere Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The entry on Indosphere is highly misleading. A quick check on JSTOR for academic articles mentioning the term turns up only 5 hits, all either by James Matisoff or making reference to his work, and in fact one of his articles is in the list because it references another of his own articles. He uses the term strictly to refer to areas of Southeast Asia with strong linguistic resemblances of one sort or another to Indic languages, and opposes it to the Southeast Asian areas with strong linguistic resemblances to Sinitic langages. He explicitly indicate that resemblance does not mean a genetic relationship--Vietnamese, he says, resembles Chinese in certain key ways, and so is placed in the Sinosphere, but it belongs to a completely unrelated linguistic family. Nowhere is this term or "Sinosphere" used to refer to political entities, or indeed to anything outside Southeast Asia.
There is no indication that the term "Indosphere" has any academic currency beyond Matisoff. A quick Google search provides links that mostly come right back here. Furthermore, all of the external links in the entry are either broken or bogus, leading to obviously chauvinistic diatribes (such as the webpage claiming Indian origin for Filipino culture).
This entry should either be drastically shortened to limit its scope to the linguistic term as used by Matisoff, or it should be deleted. Rikyu ( talk) 04:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Some possible refs that can be used to expand the article:
Abecedare ( talk) 18:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits, and the new map, although nicely done in the abstract, are once again spreading this page out beyond the narrow subject. "Indosphere" does not include India, Pakistan, etc. in any sense. As coined by Matisoff and used in linguistics, Indosphere refers to the languages of Southeast Asia that show the influence of Indic languages and scripts. All this other stuff, well done though it is, does not belong on the page, nor, really, should this page be considered part of some India-related wiki project. At the risk of being redundant, it's about the classification of Southeast Asian languages, and is not about South Asia. I don't won't to remove all the recent South Asian additions without discussion, but they need removing or serious rewriting. Rikyu ( talk) 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I've been talking to some anthropologists about the concept of an Indosphere at the U of Toronto and some have argued that the previous page with the map is valid, if you consider the suffix "-sphere" as pertaining to shared linguistic, religious, governmental, economic, and alphabetic heritage. This would be abstracted from the concept of the anglosphere. Just for reference, there was a previous nonsense argument that if you searched JSTOR and Google for Indosphere you could come up with nothing. First of all, Google is not a scholarly source, so I wouldn't use it. If you search for "anglosphere" in JSTOR (as of Sept 9th, 8:34 pm Eastern Time 2008) you will get only 1 hit (Past and Future Meet: Aleksandr Gorchakov and Russian Foreign PolicyPast and Future Meet: Aleksandr Gorchakov and Russian Foreign Policy), while if you search for Indosphere, you will retrieve 7 hits, some by Matisoff, but some by others (Chung, Ding) who are influenced by his work. Clearly, the JSTOR argument posed earlier is not valid. I'd also like to interject that some are apprehensive of pointing out a common link with India (particularly in Tibet, South East Asia) because of nationalism in their respective countries as well (ie. we invented everything, no outsider created our writing system, etc). I'm interested in this topic, I'll see if I can find more about it. 128.189.137.90 ( talk) 03:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted a fork of this article, which produced two articles citing the same references, but giving different definitions. The definitions given by the references are:
There is no Indosphere subgroup of the Tibeto-Burman languages, so I've modified the lead accordingly. Kanguole 00:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Sinosphere should link to East Asian cultural sphere instead of Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area. ATB Wikirictor ( talk) 16:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The article East Asian cultural sphere states, that it is the Sinosphere. There is a conflict, obviously. Wikirictor ( talk) 08:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Indospehere is part of greater india anway, there is certain overlap, all; i hd done was is inserted a map that surely pertains to both greater india and indosphere in terms of linguistic..the map goes with the explanation already exists in indospehere article and i inserted additional categories which all are part of indospehere lingusitically. so justify to me why were changes reverted. its annoying that some people do not understand the concept of collaborative incremental improvement and try to become protective and monopolize specific article. you may hv bene original writer or significnt contributors but once we write then it belongs to public and no one must monopolize or revert valid edits in such casual manner. that goes against the basic principals of incremental improvement of wikipedia. im going to restore the changes unless you can provide convincing answers why they do not overlap and how inserting the related categories or map is not valid? and why monopolize? dont discourage others work without valid reasons with filmsy subjective personal preferences. Lezela ( talk) 16:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Indosphere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.uwm.edu/~noonan/806/Enfield.Areal-SEA.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add Mongolia to the map of Indosphere. Mongolia is a country of the Indian cultural sphere as much as Tibet and Burma.
Thank you. Wikibilig ( talk) 09:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)