Talk:Southeast Asia/Archive 2

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.12.13 (talk) 16:12, 22 September 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)

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)

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) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

History

The article currently states:

"Studies presented by HUGO (Human Genome Organization) through genetic studies of the Asian races, scientifically points out to a single Asian migration from Southeast Asia traveling northwards slowly populating Southern parts of East Asia and then East Asia itself instead of the other way around."

While it is widely acknowledged that Asian (and European) settlement originated from the south, the appearance of indigenous Australoid Southeast Asians and modern Mongoloid Asians are quite different. The article fails to mention the further evolution of migrating Southeast Asians once they arrived in East Asia. In other words, Mongoloid East Asians are descended from Australoid South East Asians, and thus share some obvious genetic similarities, but they diverge in many other instances because of later adaptations.

From my understanding, the indigenous Southeast Asians were Australoid peoples who resembled modern negritos, Papuans, and other Melanesians. This group then migrated northwards tens of thousands of years ago and populated East Asia (as the quoted portion of the article asserts). But once there, their physical appearance changed to fit the new environment. They became Mongoloid East Asians. Then there was a second migration in more recent millenia of these Mongoloid Asians (i.e. Austronesians -- probably from mainland China or Taiwan) back to Southeast Asia, where they overwhelmed the indigenous Australoid inhabitants and went on to form the majority of the population. So while there still exists remnants of Southeast Asia's original inhabitants, most of the people are descendants of the Austronesians who came within the last 5,000 years.

Shouldn't these two separate settlements be distinguished? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheyCallMeTheEditor (talk • contribs) 00:11, 31 May 2012 (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)
Two years later and this issue is still unresolved. In the infobox is a map of ASEAN member states. New Guinea is not part of Asia (neither the east nor the west). JIMp talk·cont 04:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
But the Taiwanese government thinks so.[1][2][3][4][5][6] 119.236.141.31 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Look at me!!! Look at me!!! Look at me!!! Look at me!!! Look at me!!!

Skyscrapers, shopping centres, motorways, and airports.

Having lived in a number of SE Asian cities, I understand that many native inhabitants of these countries are keen to show off the modern aspects of a city - more so, it would seem, than westerners and their cities. I also suspect that a number of SE Asian editors try to use wikipedia to show the world that their country is not a developing country, but a thriving, influential, ultra modern, influential, prosperous, etc, etc city and insert pictures of gleaming skyscrapers, etc. But this doesn't provide a good understanding of the SE Asian economy, It is but a small part. What about economic history? THe changes? The major employers? Exports, imports? Standard of living? ANd I'm not just talking about a summation of the individual countries.

Another thing to keep in mind is that an article with a little bit of good info is a better than one with a lot of bad/irrelevant info. We don't' have to fill it up with bad info because we don't yet have good info.

Accordingly, I've removed the irrelevant two-paragraph discussion on a particular city in the FIllipines. ANd I will remove the shopping centre section (which is again basically about the Philippines). And I've removed an irrelevant pic of Jakarta that provides no understanding of the economy. FOr now I've left the SIngapore container terminal as it is actually the largest in the world (apparently), but even this doesn't help readers to understand the SE Asian economy. Like the rest of the things I mention, it seems more like a boast of modernity. --Merbabu (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I also suspect that a number of SE Asian editors try to use wikipedia to show the world that their country is not a developing country, but a thriving, influential, ultra modern, influential, prosperous, etc, etc city and insert pictures of gleaming skyscrapers, etc. Yup. Totally agree. This is for basically every single developing country/region. People like to show off and in many cases deliberately introduce factual errors by changing data and info ever so slightly to give the idea to the reader that so and so place is developed, modern, thriving, etc and not a developing country/region. It's really nothing new. Elockid (Talk) 15:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
If one sees how often Southeast Asia is portrayed in Western media, especially in tourism brochures but also sometimes even here in Wikipedia, as a collection of quaint poor-but-oh-so-happy people who are still dressed in traditional clothes and live in thatched huts, this overcompensation of some of the editors is understandable. - Takeaway (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
but still not acceptable for an encyclopaedia. --Merbabu (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it isn't acceptable, it was just to put the issue in to perspective because seeing these editors only in "me too" and "look at me" terms, or as one editor says above, as "show offs", does them injustice. - Takeaway (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
If, for example, the Philippine government is intent on running WOW PHILIPPINE/It's more fun in the Philippine ads focused around people in traditional clothes on rice patties, then you can hardly blame the western media for the stereotypical image. CMD (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
True, local tourism agencies continue to propagate that image but that too is understandable as it adhers to the business adage that "It's easier to sell what people know". Apparently, that image appeals to what many Westerners imagine the region to be. - Takeaway (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Irrespective for any over-compensation issues, even when decribing a modern economy, is a section devoted soley to Shopping Centres, and 1/2 dozen pictures of skyscrapers actually doing the job? There's a lot more to a modern economy than malls. It's a fairly narrow, and dare I say it, juvenile focus. They are merely a symbol of the change, and form only a small fraction of overall (modern!) economic activity. --Merbabu (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I readily admit that the edits that triggered this section in the talk page were indeed fairly juvenile. It put a smile on my face when I saw them happen.
The biggest problem in describing what you are asking for though, lies in the fact that SEA is so very diverse. Cultural and historical commonalities aside, the growth of the respective modern economies have been shaped by what set each country apart from the other. There didn't seem to be much true cooperation between the countries until recently apart from the ethnic Chinese business families who operated region-wide where they could. This was probably partly the result of the competing colonial empires which made trade between the different blocks very difficult due to each colony being focussed on their "motherland", and later, after decolonisation, by the new political elites who seemed more interested, for a whole host of reasons, including personal greed, in curbing the financial power of the supranational Chinese business families within their respective countries, thus restricting communal growth. In contrast to, for instance, Western Europe after WW II, there didn't seem to be a cooperative effort, besides the niceties being exchanged at ASEAN meetings, to formulate a plan for the whole region for mutual growth. It is because of these issues that it is difficult to create a section on the economy of SEA as a whole as each country seemed to be doing their own thing, each at their own speed. The chasm caused by the Vietnam war didn't help much either. Only after the fall of the communist block and the globalisation of production, does the region seem to have found a common economic ground again. Urbanisation in SEA of the past two decade, with few exceptions, does seem to follow common principles. The shopping malls and skyscrapers are, as you have remarked, symbols of this new Southeast Asian, communal, economy and whole hordes of youngsters in the region now grow up with this new reality or at least strive to become part of it. The growth of a more or less comfortably off middle class is only very recent in most Southeast Asian countries. Even Singapore's middle class didn't exist until the late 60s, early 70s, or at least not as the significant part of the population that it is now. As you say, the region is in flux, with the old economy, being mainly agriculture, still largely intact, and a new economy, with industrial manufacturing, computer industries and financial services, taking shape. Perhaps this change should be the focus of the article. - 00:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If much of what you've written above can all be verified by reliable sources, then we would be well on the way to making a good economics section. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't consider myself a very original thinker so much of the above must be a condensed version of things that I have read somewhere. ;-) It should therefore be possible to find the appropriate sources for a revised economic section for the article, at least if we can agree that the way I described it here is a reasonable framework to build upon. - Takeaway (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I thought to have a look at what was written about this subject in the German wikipedia and I was highly surprised by the fact that in many ways, their "History of Southeast Asia from 1945 onwards", very much reflects what I have written here above. I can assure you that I have never seen it before. Here is a link to that section. - Takeaway (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


IP - repeated changes

Hello... the page has been temporarily semi-protected. As best as I can tell, there is an IP that is repeatedly making changes that do not appear to have consensus. If this is not the case, please indicate so here and I'll remove the protection ASAP. (Or, for that matter, you can ask any admin who's online at the time.) For clarity, please note that I have no preference as to the content; my involvement is strictly as an admin. --Ckatzchatspy 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia isn't owned by 'page regulars' (as Ckatz called it in his/her edit summary). Second, that whole paragraph was deleted by User:Paul 012 with no consensus. All I did was to restore it while discussion is in progress above. (He can always add the {{dubious}} tag next to the paragraph if he wishes.) Third, Ckatz had undone other edits of mine that are unrelated to that paragraph.[7] Ckatz please don't present a wrong picture of what had happened, and please do fulfil the duty as an admin and spend some time to look into what had actually happened. Thanks and regards. 119.236.141.31 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

To remove the | bars in the infobox between India and the Andamans, and between China and Hainan. Ckatz reinstated them for no reason in his/her recent warring revert.[8] 119.236.141.31 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: 'page is semi-protected, any registered editor can make the change. Please avoid unnecessary claims in your requests.'[9] I'm sorry to have applied the wrong template. I thought there's only one template for all protected pages full or semi. I didn't attempt to claim anything unnecessary. Thanks. 119.236.141.31 (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
This seems to have been done so I'm marking this request as answered. If you don't feel it has been then please reinstate it. Egg Centric 15:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Egg centric I'm afraid the | bars are still there in the infobox, between India and the Andamans, and between the People's Republic of China and Hainan. You sure it seems to have been answered? 119.236.141.31 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Which infobox?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Done I found it and have made the change provisionally. As I understand it, this is essentially a formatting issue; the pipe character shifts "Andaman and Nicobar Islands" and "Hainan" onto new lines below the respective flags of India and China. If it winds up somehow having some geopolitical meaning of which I'm unaware, anyone should feel free to undo my edit. Rivertorch (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rivertorch. I removed them but Ckatz reinstated them for no reason. He/she should apologise. 119.236.141.31 (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
No. From the page history, it appears that those two little ASCII characters were simply caught up in the edit war in which you participated and because of which the article is now semiprotected. It's up to you, but I'd suggest you refrain from cluttering this talk page with calls for apologies or questions about other editors' actions. In general it's best to assume good faith and just move on. Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2012 (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)

I counted 23 for the inclusion of Hong Kong. It's hard not to think that the more citations for something, the more dubious it is! It just smacks of editors trying to make a flimsy point firmer.--Merbabu (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the paragraph. All that was in the sources was that something or someplace in Hong Kong/Taiwan/Macau was regarded as "the largest in Southeast Asia". None actually directly supported the fact that those geographical entities are regarded as part of SEA. As such claims are promotional in nature, I think it's better to discount them altogether rather than accepting such extrapolations. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
From what I read, the references reflect actual usage. They are practically considered part of this geographical region. Geographical regions don't stop at political borders. Please discuss before you make bold changes. 119.236.141.31 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
And references need to be reliable sources dealing directly with the subject. Almost all that were used to back the Hong Kong claim were, as I note above, promotional material claiming some tourist attraction in Hong Kong is "the largest in Southeast Asia", possibly because the claim could not be made for in China. Due to their promotional nature and the fact that they are not even actually discussing Southeast Asia, such claims should not be taken as prove that Hong Kong is in fact in Southeast Asia. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this straw man argument? You just claim that they're promotional materials. 119.236.141.31 (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The whole issue also interested me so I did do a search for more reliable sources. Hong Kong is indeed sometimes bunched in with Southeast Asia, especially in sources in the business/financial sector. See [10],[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and [16].
Travel guides by Fodor, Lonely Planet and Rough Guide lump HK in with SEA: see here, here and here. So too the Southeast Asia Pilot (sailing guide), see here.
See also the text of the following maps: here and this one from 1961 from National Geographic. And here is an article called "Community Problems and Social Work in Southeast Asia: The Hong Kong and Singapore Experience."
Possible explanations why Hong Kong is often included can be found here and here. In my opinion, the best explanation why Hong Kong is often included can be found here, where it says: the Cold War broke the link between Hong Kong and its motherland China and drove it closer to Southeast Asia under the umbrella of the Commonwealth, which allowed the Hong Kong Chinese a borderless access to Singapore and Malaya. In other words, it is because of HK's former European colonial past, something it shares with all the countries of SEA except Thailand.
This link also mentions Manipur, in NE India, as being part of SEA.
I would opt for a compromise in the article, and list these regions in a separate section, for instance "culturally affiliated with SEA" or "closely affiliated with SEA". This too would rightfully open up the inclusion of the southern border region of China with its Thai, Dai, Vietnamese, Miao, Hmong, Lua, Wa, Akha, Lahu and other ethnicities who also live there. - Takeaway (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
That's right. Geographical regions don't stop at political borders. 119.236.141.31 (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no objections as long as the additions are cited to verifiable reliable sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

They geographically belong to Southeast Asia although they are politically controlled by an East Asian State. 117.103.153.160 (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I see lots of reverts but no one seems to want to discuss anything. - Takeaway (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Anon, what does “geographically located” mean? And how is Hong Kong (and, say, not China) “geographically located” in SE Asia. --Merbabu (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think either that those regions automatically "belong" to Southeast Asia. It just depends on what grounds you decide to categorise regions. Politically, SEA should be seen in the narrowest possible sense. Classifying what is, and what isn't geographically part of SEA is more difficult. Is it climate, the "lay of the land", the people, or the flora or fauna that dictate what is and what isn't part of SEA? Hong Kong seems to fit in SEA due to "Economic geography". References based on tourism brochures really don't do it. Tourism brochures will say anything to get people to visit so if it's beneficial to say that HK is part of SEA to make people come visit, they will say that. And at the same time tell them that it is part of China and the rest of East Asia, and even Northeast Asia, if that is more benificial, hoping to get customers who are contemplating either destination to include HK in their itinerary. How about the following split up: HK and Taiwan part of SEA because of financial-economic-political history, and the southern Chinese provinces, Hainan island and the 7 Sister States due to cultural-ecological overlap. Even Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia can be explained as being culturally affiliated to SEA, as can parts of the south coast of Sri Lanka and Madagascar island due to settlers from the Malaysian peninsula and archipelago. - Takeaway (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Why don't we restore that whole paragraph and work to improve the presentation of the sources? 110.4.16.154 (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Southeast Asia

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Southeast Asia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Davis":

  • From Mayon Volcano: Davis, Lee (1992). Natural disasters: from the Black Plague to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. New York, NY: Facts on File Inc. pp. 300–301.
  • From Biodiversity: Davis. Intro To Env Engg (Sie), 4E. McGraw-Hill Education (India) Pvt Ltd. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-0-07-067117-1. Retrieved 28 June 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


Wealth Distribution in Southeast Asia

I am a student at Rice University in Houston, TX, and I'm planning to write an article entry about wealth distribution in Southeast Asia for my Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class. This existing page on Southeast Asia is quite extensive in its depiction of the region’s history, political systems, geography, and culture, but lacks an analysis of development – an extremely relevant subject in a region with expanding economies. The Southeast Asia page does has an “Economy” section with a little over five hundred words, but lacks within that section any information about wealth on a non-macro level or about human capabilities. The word “poverty” is not mentioned once in the entire Southeast Asia Wikipedia page. There are also various pages on income-specific inequality in the United States, a short article on international inequality, and other related topics. They do not, however, adequately address the issue of wealth distribution and corresponding measurements of human capabilities in the region being examined. A region-specific article that focuses on macroeconomic development as well as individual wealth distribution could unite these issues into a more targeted analysis of wealth in that region, and perhaps encourage future work on other regions. Therefore, I plan to write a new, comprehensive article with information regarding and various analyses of wealth distribution and poverty in Southeast Asia, with a link to this new page as a subsection under “Southeast Asia / Economy”. As previously discussed, my article will focus on wealth distribution on Southeast Asia, the various forces acting on said distribution (tax policy, globalization, market forces, socio-economic relationships, etc.), and effects of various levels of wealth throughout the region on human capabilities and overall economic development in Southeast Asian countries. I believe this is a better course of action than to simply revise and expand upon the “Economy” section of the Southeast Asia Wikipedia page, as an expansion of a topic such as this one might lead to an unreasonably lengthy addition to an already lengthy article. An extensive focus on individual capabilities through wealth distribution analysis may overshadow the section’s (and article’s for that matter) focus on macro-economic policy, history, and indices. Note, however, that I do support the overall expansion of the "Economy" section of this page as it is an extremely important aspect of this developing region. With a new article clearly linked (probably as a subsection of “Economy”), I will be able to more easily connect with and build upon scattered and often inadequate pages on poverty and human development in various countries in Southeast Asia. As a highly interconnected region through ASEAN, trade, social exchange, and many other mediums, the region as a whole warrants a more cohesive and comprehensive analysis regarding poverty and human development. By looking at wealth distribution in the region (among and within different countries) with a new Wikipedia article, we can more effectively examine these issues pertinent to the shaping of policies in those countries. Reillysolis (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

HK and Macau?

Are Hong Kong and Macau SEA territories? --KungDekZa (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Simple Country Map

This page could really use a simple map that shows each country clearly labeled and colored. That's what I came here for, and I feel that it's a very common (maybe the most common) use of the page.

Exercisephys (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Religion in the lead section?

I do not see why the dominant religions are mentioned in the lead and would advocate them being removed, this is not common in these regional articles which tend to be more geographically-based. The point is not very succinct either as there are such a wide range of religions in the region. Mountaincirque (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Traditional costumes

Why are South East Asian traditional costumes similar to the Mongolian and Tungusic costumes? (Deel (clothing), Tungusic peoples). Edigher (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources 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. Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Genocide?

The sentence "The Vietnamese committed genocide against the Cham people during the 1471 Vietnamese invasion of Champa, ransacking and burning Champa, slaughtering thousands of Cham people, and forcibly assimilating them into Vietnamese culture." is very biased and has no citations to back up. I think this statement should be either be removed or written in a neutral tone. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to have the word "genocide" removed but keeping the death toll and assimilation part. The reason the word genocide was originally put in is because the book is titled Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur, the idea of the book is a comprehensive account of genocides throughout history, and the Vietnamese conquest of the Cham was in the book so that's why genocide was put in. Pages 109 and page 11 describe massacres of Cham and Page 110 describes assimilation of Cham.
This is the summary provided of the book - For thirty years Ben Kiernan has been deeply involved in the study of genocide and crimes against humanity. He has played a key role in unearthing confidential documentation of the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge. His writings have transformed our understanding not only of twentieth-century Cambodia but also of the historical phenomenon of genocide. This new book the first global history of genocide and extermination from ancient times is among his most important achievements. Kiernan examines outbreaks of mass violence from the classical era to the present, focusing on worldwide colonial exterminations and twentieth-century case studies including the Armenian genocide, the Nazi Holocaust, Stalins mass murders, and the Cambodian and Rwandan genocides. He identifies connections, patterns, and features that in nearly every case gave early warning of the catastrophe to come: racism or religious prejudice, territorial expansionism, and cults of antiquity and agrarianism. The ideologies that have motivated perpetrators of mass killings in the past persist in our new century, says Kiernan. He urges that we heed the rich historical evidence with its telltale signs for predicting and preventing future genocides.Rajmaan (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That's what I would keep too. Removing genocide would be good but keep those numbers and the assimilation part. That would be much more neutral. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

the south contains the eastern and western

the south contains the eastern and western — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:8702:D370:8429:7616:D512:36E0 (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

One grave mistake regarding the GDP per capita in the Sovereign States table

the GDP per capita in the table has been using data from a IMF report that is the estimation of 2014-2016, the report is called "World Economic Outlook Database, October 2012", with numbers drastically different from what is the truth, For example, from this report, and what is currently in the table, Indonesia has a nominal GDP per capita of 6,139 dollars, while you can find in various resources that its current GDP per capita is around 3,620. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.115.185.49 (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Largest cities in infobox?

In the infobox, shouldn't individual cities be listed instead of "metropolitan/urban areas" (Jakarta right now is linked to Jabodetabek instead of individual cities)? Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

State Area
(km2) 		Population
(2017)[1] 		Density
(/km2) 		GDP (nominal)
billions of USD (2017)[1] 		GDP (nominal)
per capita USD (2017)[1] 		HDI (2015) Capital
 Brunei 5,765 484,000 78 18.146 37,516 0.856 Bandar Seri Begawan
 Cambodia 181,035 16,032,000 85 23.383 1,458 0.555 Phnom Penh
 East Timor 14,874 1,254,000 75 5.986 4,772 0.595 Dili
 Indonesia 1,904,569 262,404,000 132 1,842.775 7,022 0.684 Jakarta
 Laos 236,800 6,837,000 30 14.873 2,175 0.575 Vientiane
 Malaysia 329,847 31,592,000 91 465.144 14,723 0.779 Kuala Lumpur *
 Myanmar 676,000 70,334,000 98 77.676 1,104 0.536 Nay Pyi Daw
 Philippines 342,353 107,871,000 338 346.374 3,211 0.668 Manila
 Singapore 724 5,849,000 7,671 328.701 56,197 0.912 Singapore (city-state)
 Thailand 513,120 66,418,000 127 511.926 7,707 0.726 Bangkok
 Vietnam 331,210 95,943,000 279 209.147 2,179 0.666 Hanoi

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1999 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference IMF was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

IP Guerilla Troll By an Block User

User:Lyndonbaines a blocked user was an indonesian who trolling in philippine articles using IP be aware of changes on this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.243.58 (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The Hinduism influence map is created by a chinese communism supporter?

Hinduism influence is spread all the way to the ends of SE Asia in the map but has been carefully scripted out of the Illegal chinses occupation of INdian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Leh and Ladkah region are Buddhist in nature and Buddhism is a suc sect of Hinduism.

Can someone work on the following? 1. Create a correct Hinduism spread map to include Illegally chines occupied Jammu and Kashmir state of india 2. Going forward ensue indian borders are rightfully shown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.188.126 (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Southeast Asia. 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:

When 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Which countries are not autonomous?

The article says "Most countries in the region enjoy national autonomy."

So which countries do not enjoy national autonomy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.145.121 (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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)


Speaking as a Hong Kong resident, Hong Kong historically considers itself more a part of Southeast Asia rather than East Asia. For the majority of its recorded history, i.e. from British occupation, Hong Kong identifies itself as having more common in system of government, colonial background, climate and so on with Southeast Asian countries than with what it considers as East Asian countries - Japan, Korea and considering itself different from it - mainland China. That may be less prominent post handover for various reasons as the Chinese government promotes Hong Kong as a part of China and any views considering Hong Kong to be in a different part of Asia as the rest of China may be toned down voluntarily (self censorship) or otherwise. Chinese wikipedia articles on Southeast Asia mentions that Hong Kong IS considered Southeast Asia in some broad definition of it, while excluding it from common definitions of it. The same article mentions Taiwan and Macau also usually included in the same broad senses for similar reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.152.253.170 (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as another Hong Kong resident.... HK is NOT in South East Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.93.233.246 (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southeast_Asia/Archive_2&oldid=1131201140"