Talk:Sinosphere

Taiwan and Hong Kong

Should Taiwan and Hong Kong not be included in the list of countries in the first paragraph? Aw1121 (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Mongolia

On 2 May 2026, user @Marugamirica made this edit which states that Mongolia is part of the Sinosphere due to shared East Asian history. No new sources were added to substantiate this claim.

Looking at the Talk page archives and article history, it seems that Mongolia's inclusion in the Sinosphere is a controversial topic. At the very least, I think it would be appropriate to soften the claim with a "might", as has been done with Singapore. Currently, there is no room for ambiguity in the statement despite Mongolia not being included in the article's map of the Sinosphere. Nulfjæs (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I was actually coming here to ask about Mongolia as well. Even aside from the change mentioned above, the article is quite incoherent in this regard, as it presents the Sinosphere as a well-defined area in terms of the map and countries involved in the lead and terminology, yet what the entire rest of the article points at is that the inclusion of Mongolia would make a lot of sense. As a sidenote, wikt:Sinosphere on Wiktionary (that we link in the article) is smart enough to avoid this pitfall with its open-ended definition. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 22:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the references used in this article, the Sinosphere seems to be a somewhat ill-defined term whose meaning has evolved and is still evolving.

Compare Sinosphere to the article on the other word coined by James Matisoff, Indosphere, or similar terms like Francosphere or Hispanosphere. They seem to be primarily linguistic groupings. The only similar article I can find is Anglosphere, which also describes shared history and cultural values. The Sinosphere article still stands out by not mentioning language at all in the introduction, except to distinguish it from the Sinophone world. (Correction: it does mention the adoption of literary Chinese by states in the Sinosphere.)

I am not enough of an expert on these terms to disentangle Sinophone, Sinosphere, Chinese cultural sphere and Greater China, but I do think the current state of the article and unclear definition leaves it vulnerable to frequent disagreements about which areas should be included. Especially because there are political undertones to the article (see the first paragraph in Sinosphere#Etymology mentioning a Chinese "Sphere of influence"). To me, the article describes a confusing mix of linguistic group, cultural group, and sphere of influence. But I am not sure what to do about it. Nulfjæs (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. At the end of the day, the article needs a way better defined scope, but that would involve pretty heavy work and editorial discretion as well. One way to go might be to contrast historical sources with high quality recent ones on usage of the term, but I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic to confidently steer things here. I am going to take the liberty of pinging @Generalissima because of the good work she has recently been doing on the China article, in case she has some input to offer about this matter. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) TarnishedPath^talk 10:13, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

---

Sinosphere → Historical influence of Chinese culture – Apparently academics use Sinosphere, a term coined by James Matisoff (born 1937) for use in linguistics. However, this Wikipedia article is for ordinary people who should not be required to know sophisticated terminology. This article is about the historical influence of Chinese culture. Let's name it accordingly. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose I disagree that "sinosphere" is "sophisticated terminology". Let's not insult people's intelligence by suggesting a widely-used term is too hard for people to wrap their head around. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not. This is an established word with specific context behind the concept it represents. Not only is the proposed title not even close to the concept, but saying of our readers that they are ordinary people who should not be required to know sophisticated terminology is borderline insulting. It is our job to write articles that are as clear as possible to a wide audience, but not to assume that they're so dumb that we need to literally rename articles lest they be confused by a word that have not seen before. The entire point of the article below this title is to explain the word. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 20:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per above arguments grapesurgeon (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose i was originally going to propose an opposition because this is an established term and it's shorter as a name but "this Wikipedia article is for ordinary people who should not be required to know sophisticated terminology" is genuinely crazy as an argument. like okay let's turn Philosophy to "big thoughts" or Quantum cryptography to "ooboo booballs crazy data locking" then. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 16:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Still supporting The term Sinosphere was invented in 1990. How did people manage to talk about this topic in the multiple millennia before that?

The Google search for "site:cnn.com sinosphere" turns up two hits, one of which is for "Sinosphere corporation". The search for "site:foxnews.com sinosphere" gives zero hits. If this word gets much use outside of academic circles, I'm not seeing it. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you really supporting your own proposal in order to make it look like it is not being (so far) universally opposed? But more seriously, is this really how you evaluate if a word is used? Because it is actually hard to think you're being serious, searching the websites of CNN and Fox and calling it a day. Even a quick and dirty Scholar search finds much older hits. Your proposal is unlikely to pass, it's frustrating, that has happened to virtually all of us, and it's fine; but this is just borderline silly. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 19:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Please remove the casting of this vote and add it to your rationale above instead. @Choucas I guess this counts as expanding the rationale, but whatever ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 19:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

For future reference, your initial nomination counts as a vote already. You are voting twice by doing this; please do not do this again. grapesurgeon (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I put still in the comment to make it clear that the comment wasn't a new vote. I put the comment at that location rather in the initial material so that it would respect the chronology of the discussion, responding to points after they were made instead of before they were made.

To those of you who are using them, your arguments for naming this article would be stronger without "crazy", "silly", and "hard to think you're being serious". Please try to avoid these in this discussion.

Yes, I consider it relevant if a term doesn't appear in popular media ... WP:COMMONNAME. People must have discussed this topic for millennia prior to 1990 when Sinosphere was coined. I am hoping that among the wordings that would have been used then, or are currently used now at CNN, Fox News, etc., we can find a title for this article that is both accurate and less exclusive to scholarly circles. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Quantling There's frankly no harm in « the chronology of the discussion » should you put it as a reply in the original rationale, as time stamps are present next to signatures; Wikipedia talks are thread-structure, not stack-structure. The fact that you put this into the vote section already registered your addition as a vote, rather than an addition to your rationale.

I also note that WP:COMMONNAME isn't strictly restrained to if it « appear(s) in popular media » as a term or not. Do we depend on popular media to determine the title for articles regarding these topics? A significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources is a parent category of popular media (which I'm inferring as news sites, blogs, etc.) and academic writings, and I'm looking towards how, in what way, is "Sinosphere" « exclusive to scholarly circles ». ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 17:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

With "already registered your addition as a vote", are you saying that there is automated software that is counting votes and mine was incorrectly counted as a new vote of support? Or are you saying that the human editors who read this discussion cannot tell that "still supporting" isn't a new vote? Or something else? Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, WP:COMMONNAME is relevant; yes, there are many aspects of WP:COMMONNAME; yes, there are many other priorities at Wikipedia as well. You are, of course, free to argue that other things are more important than "appears in popular media" and I thank you for joining in this discussion.

Although the near total absence of hits at cnn.com and foxnews.com do give me pause, I'm not actually trying to argue that Sinosphere is exclusive to scholarly circles. But there is a lot of use in scholarly circles and less use outside of them (at least that's my perception) so I'm seeking a title that is less exclusive to scholarly circles. I hope that clarifies my goal. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose and I'd like to point out that this article covers the geographic sphere of influence caused by the "historical influence of Chinese culture". This includes a wide range of practices themselves, not just how China influenced them. ~2026-43841-24 (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree that including explicit mention of geography would be good. What do you think of Chinese cultural sphere or Chinese cultural region? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Same user here. I've noticed that titles for cultural spheres are inconsistent on enwiki: Sinosphere, Greater India / Indosphere (linguistics), Islamic world, Latin America, and (by extension) Western world. However, consistency is not a requirement and, in my opinion, we shouldn't invest too much time in move requests unless it's absolutely necessary. Changing from one term to an alternative term is very often pointless (WP:PERSPECTIVE) due to redirects. In this case, while "Sinosphere" is a relatively new term, it experienced rapid growth in usage and surpassed all other terms according to ngram. Of course the news would return 0 hits, as they often just use "East Asia" or, worse, "Asia" to refer to anything China-adjacent. ~2026-44046-71 (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the data from ngram. In case it is something you could do easily ... is there a way to find out how many of those counts are in academic articles (e.g., that scholar.google.com would find) vs. those in non-academic articles, blogs, general-news sites, etc.? I don't think of this topic as one that is of interest primarily only to academics, so I am hoping to use terminology that is in regular use beyond academics. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - historical Chinese influence is not the same as sinosphere as Chinese influence goes beyond it. All of the proposed replacements or whatever alternative articles are already covered by sinosphere or other articles. Qiushufang (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

What do you think about "Chinese cultural sphere" ... and/or does it suffer the same criticism as you gave for "historical Chinese influence"? I am now preferring the former over the latter. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Point of order I'd like folks to also consider Chinese cultural sphere as the new name for the article. Do I do that by mentioning that in the discussion here, modifying the paragraph at the top of this discussion, starting a new discussion (now, or after this one is complete), or what? The supporting reason is

The term Sinosphere is almost totally absent from common sites like cnn.com (2 occurrences) and foxnews.com (0 occurrences), indicating that the term is not that common in everyday speech. I recommend a change to Chinese cultural sphere, which means the same thing, but uses words that are more commonly used.

Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Quantling this is your eighth comment, not including the request itself. You are WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. You already suggested this new name in a previous comment, and already used the same reasoning in another. In both instances, there has been no support. You have made your arguments, there is no value in repeating them or answering everyone else. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 20:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Choucas I see in your response that the answer to my point-oforder is that I have already formally achieved adding Chinese cultureal sphere to the discussion. That works for me. Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Chinese cultural sphere. That is shorter and more accurate than "Historical influence of Chinese culture", I think. This article has much history, but it's more a geography article than pure history. And "Historical influence of Chinese culture" is kind of long and WP:AT doesn't like that. "Sinosphere" is not parallel with "Anglosphere", which is about places where English is the native language, period, while "Sinosphere" apparantly doesn't mean the equivilant for Chinese. And this confused me, a little. Also, arguments citing academic usage mostly leave me cold. We write for the general population; it's not Snobopedia. Herostratus (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

To clarity, I support a name change. "Sinosphere" is no good. I prefer "Chinese cultural sphere" but if the only option to change to is "Historical influence of Chinese culture", then that will do. I would like to point out that these threads are supposed be discussions where together we can work for the best solution, not a court of law or a first-past-the-post election for alderman. Well, here we have another editor who has (IMO) suggested a better solution then was originally proposed. This is good, not bad. I request the closer to consider this, and suggest that that the thread be kept open long, and that any editors that would change their vote to the newly suggested "Chinese cultural sphere" if they think that's better do so, please. Recognizing that most of the people have moved on and won't be coming back, tho. Herostratus (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Alright, I will give it a relist, although I seriously wonder if it wouldn't just be better for the alternative proposal to be dealt with in a separate RM discussion. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose both proposed moves per arguments raised above, especially Choucas. A Google search of the term "Chinese cultural sphere" seems to prominently bring up pages using it to explain the term Sinosphere or as an alternative term for Sinosphere. It also seems to risk confusion with the concept of Greater China. I would further note that Sinosphere is a rather transparent, compositional formation from Sino- and -sphere, which is not unreasonable to expect for the average educated English speaker to know. Kisseran (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Mnmh, looks like about 50-50 in the first few results. But the Ngram and Google trends support Sinosphere. This data goes against my preferred outcome, but I present it anyway, cos that's the Wikipedia way. I still support the change cos my guess is that "Chinese cultural sphere" probably works better for a plurality of our reader base. But that is hard to prove. Herostratus (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is correct for the concept. The proposal is not. The alternative, "Chinese cultural sphere", is better than the proposal but not than the current title. A descriptive title is probably impossible in this case. The basic grouping of China–Korea–Japan–Vietnam (but not Mongolia or Burma) cannot be easily summed other than with an established term of art. It may therefore be best that the current title is more obviously such a term. Srnec (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose both proposals. The term "Historical influence of Chinese culture" is definitely not good because it fails to distinguish between this group of cultures in East Asia which have been heavily influenced, and a more general level of influence elsewhere. We need to be able to talk about the difference between Korea, for example, with a history of intense Chinese influence politically and culturally, and Indonesia with a different kind of cultural influence that manifests in distinct ways... If the proposed term cannot make this distinction, it is not possible to use the term as the name of the article. As for the term "Chinese cultural sphere" I do not really see any reason to prefer this to "Sinosphere." I think "Chinese cultural sphere" might be a little bit too literal, too easily confused with the concept of Chinese influence in general, the Chinese diaspora, or something vaguer... I feel as if "Sinosphere" is preferable because it clearly sounds like a technical term and therefore indicates something particular, a particular specialist sense which we need to communicate to the readers. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 01:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.