Talk:Mainland Southeast Asia

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Comment

I'm not sure you can call it an invasion: the Vichy gvt. ordered them to surrender. I don't think a shot was fired. -- JCWF, 2002 August 22

OK, interesting. Also worth noting is that Japan was not at war with France (Free or Vichy) at the time. -- Hotlorp, 2002 August 22

did not invade Vietnam nor occupy Thailand like the other Asian countries. (A Vietnamese American student told me this.) The Japanese Army invaded Thailand in order to go to British Malaya, but after some negotiations, the Thais became allies to Japan like Manchuria. They’re only interested in China and invaded territories in Asia that belonged to the British and Americans who were militarily supporting the Chinese. The Japanese let the Vichy Government continue administering French Indochina but posted some IJAAF squadrons at airbases in northern Vietnam in order to intercept American/British/Chinese military planes and transports from India and Burma headed towards western China. As a matter of fact, after the war ended, some Japanese military officers and NCOs helped Ho Chi Minh and the VietMinh forces as military advisors against the French Forces in the 1950s in the first Vietnam War. --James 02:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Did Japanese soldiers fight for the Vietminh?

Maps

The ideal map for the historical colony would be something from the 1920-1940 timeframe, illustrating how contemporaries saw it. There are a couple around the net, only PD of the colony I saw was an 1885, useful but not reflective of the later-established boundaries. A supplemental map would be a modern regional map highlighting countries, a la West Africa. Stan 14:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of term

Every source that I have consulted says that "Indochina" means the mainland peninsula in Southeast Asia. It is not exactly the same as "French Indochina", which is an historical term. So, at the risk of causing a major uproar, I shall adjust things accordingly. Kelisi 03:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peninsular Malaysia

Is the Peninsular considered as part of Indochina? I doubt it so. Despite the peninsular is not an island, history has already considered the peninsular as part of maritime SEA. In fact, the sultanate of malacca was considered a maritime empire instead of agrarian, as all other indochinese empires were. __earth July 8, 2005 01:37 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you. Geografically speaking, yes, the peninsula is part of the Euro-Asia continent, but historically, it isn't. Most of the kingdoms that once rule the peninsula like Lembah Bujang kingdom and Malacca are maritime kingdom. The term Indochina is usually used for historical reason thus the peninsula is not part of Indochina, yet it's part of Malay archipelago. 141.213.240.242 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Peninsular Malaysia is always included in Indochina, but Singapore is not. This is a geographic term and cannot be disputed on the grounds of culture or history. Every source I have checked lists the mainland portion of Malaysia as part of Indochina. It is true that Malaysia is also a part of the more recent term "Maritime Southeast Asia" but such overlaps are common. The clear distinction between the sub-regions is usually made on political grounds, often when referring to what is popularly called the "Malay World", therefore needing some deciding factor in grouping together the Indon-Malay cultural sphere. Morinae (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Indochina, Indo-China or IndoChina

Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Indonesian (one word because the nesia part is from Greek for island); the map itself reads Indo-China- how did the title become Indochina? Paul venter 17:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

indian influence

how is laos and thailand under indian influence. laos people have chinese style names, and thailand has a much larger chinese population than indian. not to mention thailand takes rmb. can you say the same for rupis.

You ought to do a little more research. Thailand and Laos owes much of its culture to India, but you can't say the same for China. 4.239.66.137 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

actually lao names are indian influenced through pali. and indian influence is seen in almost every aspect of thai/lao/cambodian culture. the chinese influences are minimal in comparison. thailand may have a large ethnic chinese population who hold influence in the country but the two cultures themselves remain heavily distinct from each other.

Possible, Cambodian gain a wrong indian influenced in the past but convert to various influeced in following century. I don't know why the writer still thought their idea is correct and edit back that Thai, lao, burma and cambodia under strong indian influced and the rest is Chinese. You should explain. Seeing indian element there didn't mean their from indian. Indonesia, malaysia consist chinese influenced refer to the population. That totally nonsense if compare to its long history of indian influenced and then changed by middle east. should made more detail about those influenced, not just write down if strong indian or chinese. And study back to burma. This country is equally influenced by chinese and indian. One more about chopstick; if they used chopstick, it mean they got the hardly chinese. This idea is not logic to the term of infuenced. Sometime chinese can be infleuncedin dress and architecture like burma or some tradition. Engsamnang (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Origin of term

What is the histroical origin of the term? When was it first used and by whom? Dan Gluck 14:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, would want to know that. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The French colonisers in Vietnam adopted term this in expanding their territory to Cambodia and Laos. It has French origins,Indochine whiich translates to Indochina in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwaynydelights (talk • contribs) 09:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

earlier comment

The English text badly needs editing and correcting as it is peppered with linguistic mistakes almost to the point of illegibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.211.43 (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (2014)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below; there may be cause to review the scope of the article, but that is a separate matter. Dekimasuよ! 21:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Indochina → Indochinese Peninsula – Readers searching for "Indochina" are probably quite often looking for French Indochina. The shortened term quite is often used to refer to the colony, especially in historical contexts. I suggest that in this case there isn't really a primary topic, and Indochina should be a disambiguation page. Paul_012 (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Indochina, as in the peninsula, is indeed the primary topic. It is not a shortened term for French Indochina. On the contrary, the colonists originally used the word Indochine for the peninsula. By adding the attributive adjective French it refers to those parts of Indochina which were under French rule. Indochina as a term is not and should not be intrinsically linked to those few countries which were French colonies. Naming the article "Indochinese Peninsula" would be like having an article for the "Asian Continent" or the "American Nation". Granted, many people will be more familiar with French Indochina than the peninsula as a whole, but I don't think "quite often" is justification enough. Morinae (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I looked up maps of Indochina on Bing. They have at least fifty and the vast majority are of the former French area. Britannica defines Indochina as "the three states of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia." The history given above is not correct. When it existed. the colony was called simply "Indo-China" (Indochine). The banknotes say "Banque de l'Indochine," not "French" anything. "French" is a disambiguator historians added to distinguish the colony from the modern region. Claimsworth (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support: The notes by Claimsworth demonstrate how ambiguous this is. "French Indochina" was called "Indochina" (Indochine), not "French Indochina", but this article is about the Indochinese Peninsula, not French Indochina.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is quite short and there is a hatnote at the top directing readers to French Indochina. Creating another (DAB) article on Indochina does not make it any easier for readers to get to French Indochina. Instead, use the current Indochina article as a WP:CONCEPTDAB and provide an explanation of the various iterations of Indochina. —  AjaxSmack  02:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with AjaxSmack that this is better as a concept DAB. Number 57 17:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Short of a Prod - Need for WP:RS

This article is still questionable - it does not have adequate WP:RS to be sufficiently explained as to the broader usage - or when it was used, and the usual usage now.

I believe the move proposed and abandoned above still leaves an inadequately sourced article to carry the broad claim that it is carrying. satusuro 13:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Distinction between Indochina and Indochinese Peninsula

There is a strong need to make a distinciton between the geographical term of Indochinese Peninsula as the continental part of Southeast Asia Region, and on the other hand the geopolitical, historical and cultural region of Indochina.

Indochinese Peninsula is an established geographical term for naming the landmass that stretches from Myanmar to Vietnam and to Singapore in the south. I am familiar with the other definition of Indochinese Peninsula, as well (i.e. from Vietnam to approx. Bangkok). There are both definitions in use. I see them as definition of Indochinese Peninsula in the broad sense and the other one in the narrow sense.

Indochina on the other hand is more of a geopolitical, cultural and historical term. It is the name of the region, and regions often tend to be very difficult to define.

I find the term Mainland southeast Asia to be a synonym for Indochinese Peninsula (in the broad sense of the definition, the one that I am familiar with as a geographer). Since the term Indochinese Peninsula is well established, I see no need in pushing forward the term Mainland southeast Asia. Cabana (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR unless WP:RS are utilised and established - to make claims of familiarity is insufficient here. satusuro 23:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope, this will help:

The origin of the term Indochina is precolonial:

• http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Indochina
• http://www.anai-asso.org/NET/document/indochine/index.htm

One definition of the term Indochina in English is identical to the geographical definition of the term Indochinese Peninsula:

• http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/indochina?showCookiePolicy=true
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indochina
• https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Indochina
• http://www.wordsmyth.net/?ent=Indochina Cabana (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed move by Crisco 1492

On 26 February, User:Crisco 1492 unilaterally renamed the page from Indochina to Mainland southeast Asia (which should actually be Mainland Southeast Asia, with a capital S). This is despite discussion in the above section providing no consensus to rename the article. His assertion that "No sources indicate Indochina being used outside the French Indochina meaning" is faulty. See https://books.google.com/books?id=g3oajnKzUNEC&lpg=PA1&dq=Indochinese%20Peninsula&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false for an example discussion of the term. Some of the removed content should probably be restored. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The source you cited says explicitly that it would be misleading to use the term "Indochina" in a broad geographical sense because it was preempted by the French. Srnec (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• And the capitalization issue can be fixed easily. If you wanted to add referenced material discussing the terminology used to refer to MSA, feel free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sub-Loirean France and Indochina

Isn't there many Indochina jokes out there about Sub-Loirean Frenchmen? Maybe this could be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Moved

I've created a new Indochina article to serve as a WP:CONCEPTDAB per the suggestions above, and renamed this article. I chose Mainland Southeast Asia as the _target only because it wasn't being held up by a redirect, as Indochinese Peninsula was. If someone thinks that title is better, I've no objections.

There's still the huge task of checking the whole lot of incoming links to Indochina and redirecting them here as appropriate. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mainland 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5tygEnlqv?url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 merge tag

Zoupan, the Indochina article was purposely created as a separate WP:CONCEPTDAB article in order to avoid the naming issues repeatedly discussed in the multiple sections above. Are there any reasons in particular that you think the action should be reversed? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes← — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallywaky (talk • contribs) 23:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

reconsider renaming Mainland Southeast Asia to Indochina. Wikipedia:Moving a page --Fallywaky (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Hello everyone, I am a high school student in the USA and I was searching around Wikipedia for a page about "Indochina" for a geography task. I found the page for Indochina, but7 it wasn't what I was looking for. It was claiming the article for Indochina was titled "Mainland Southeast Asia" or the Indochinese Peninsula". I was confused because I am big into geography and had never heard the term "Indochina" referred to as "Mainland southeast Asia". I read into it and had heard that their had been a movement to change the original articles name from "Indochina" due to its confusion with "French Indochina." I tried editing the page, but User:Paul_012 said that "Indochina" was also "a historical term."

I understand the confusion with "French Indochina" but there is already a page for specifically "French Indochina." Plus, Indochina is definitely not a "historical term." I know many people of Indochinese decent from Vietnam, Laos, and Burma (Myanmar) as I live in an area with a very high Asian population and they use the term quite often to refer to where they're families are descended from. If the confusion with the historical name of "Indochina" referring to it time as a colonial entity of France is an issue, Why don't we title this page "Modern Indochina" or just "Indochina" and add disambiguation on the top for "French Indochina."

Thanks for the consideration, and hope we can solve this "issue." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Fallywaky (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, but allow me to ping previously involved editors Cabana, AjaxSmack, JarrahTree, Srnec, Morinae and SMcCandlish. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A bit of background: This article was previously titled Indochina. In October 2014 a move request was made to rename it to Indochinese Peninsula, in order to avoid confusion with French Indochina. There was no consensus for the move, but some editors suggested using Indochina as a WP:CONCEPTDAB (WP:Broad-concept article). In March 2015, an editor unilaterally moved the article to Mainland Southeast Asia. This was reverted in October. In October 2016, A separate article Indochina, mainly covering the name's history, was created, and this article was moved to Mainland Southeast Asia, following previous talk page suggestions. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I am dead against a the circle/merry go round in which the title keeps changing (and in this case with a background against peoples alleged usages) - this is an encyclopedia (and tries to be) where a term can be used (and then the alternative names and usages can be in the article and redirects is , surely is sufficient) - otherwise the same thing keeps going around. A closer examination of the talk page above shows that there are issues with any one variant regardless of any one editors opinion. JarrahTree 08:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

At a minimum, there probably needs to be some histmerging no matter what the title. I like the idea of a merge of the current articles called Mainland Southeast Asia and Indochina. These articles are both short (stubby?) and lightly sourced, and they deal with nearly the same topic (the term "mainland Southeast Asia" appears to be merely a descriptive and is not even sourced in the article; this descriptive describes Indochina exactly [cf. Middle Europe and Central Europe]). However, I understand others might believe that like, say Levant and Eastern Mediterranean, there is enough difference to warrant two articles. —  AjaxSmack  13:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree this should move, to a term actually well-attested in reliable sources, with some history merge as needed. "Mainland Southeast Asia" appears to be a descriptive phrase some Wikipedian made up out of their butt. We don't use fake names for things when we have real ones to use, even if they require disambiguation. And we have disambiguation, both by title and by hatnote, for a reason. The region typically known as Indochina has a rich history, and should be an extensive article, with {{Main}} branching out, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, to other major articles like French Indochina. "Indochinese Peninsula" is a possible title, if RS regularly use it that it's become with WP:COMMONNAME, and is in fact a proper name, not just another off-the-top-of-my-head descriptive phrase. The current stub is rather embarrassing, as is it's confusing "make up whatever I feel like" title. Sounds to me like this needs a proper WP:RM discussion instead of any more manual moves or WP:RM/TR moves. (That said, the undiscussed move to the current name could probably be RM/TR'ed back to the name before that, which I think was "Indochinese Peninsula"; but I'm not sure what would be productive.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with ¢, " Mainland SE Asia isn't a real term. Nobody says that. Plus there is nothing historical about the term Indochina, it is a completely modern term. Just because some people are confused doesn't mean we need to make up a whole new term for it. Fallywaky (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty knew to this platform, If somebody could help me furthering this process of changing the title of this page, that would be great, ThanksFallywaky (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

JarrahTree I also agree with you, we shouldn't be changing titles around. That's what got us here in the first place. Indochina has always been called Indochina or rarely the Indochinese peninsula. I understand there can be many phrases referring to the same thing, but Mainland SE Asia isn't a phrase of common use.Fallywaky (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I have withdrawn from this - [1] JarrahTree 16:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The link you shared has about 3,000 articles on "Mainland SE Asia",but has over 100,000 articles on Indochina. Fallywaky (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Fallywaky (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Indochinese Peninsula is an okay title, Indochina is a bit more recognizable though. Mainland SE Asia isn't a title or phrase it is a mere description. I like "Present-day Indochina" or Just Indochina. We can put a "disambiguation" for colonial Indochina.

Once again I am unfamiliar on how to change the name of a page, Help would be much appricated Fallywaky (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Fallywaky, discussions on Wikipedia tend to take several days or weeks. Please be patient and allow time for others to voice their thoughts.

Regarding the issue at hand, so far I haven't seen indication that Indochina is the more commonly preferred term by today's WP:reliable sources. Looking through book search results, most titles that include "Indochina" are about French Indochina, not the wider geographical term. Conversely, major reference works such as Charles F. Keyes' The Golden Peninsula: Culture and Adaptation in Mainland Southeast Asia use "Mainland Southeast Asia", so the above assertion that it isn't used is faulty. Even George Coedes doesn't use Indochina in the titles of The making of South East Asia and The Indianized states of Southeast Asia (though he does primarily use "Indochina" in the former and "Indochinese peninsula" in the latter). This probably needs input from someone familiar with the subject in a scholarly context. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Somebody said above that the phrase "Mainland Southeast Asia" was made up by some wikipedian. Sorry, but that's poppycock. Just try google books: there are 70,000 results for this term. This region is not my main area of interest, but I do occasionally read about its linguistics, anthropology and precolonial history, and in these contexts, the term used is "Mainland Southeast Asia". "Indochina" is never used, and to me it sounds like an archaic term with a distinct orientalising connotation. – Uanfala (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, once again I am not familiar with title changes and with the time it takes, look, I'm not here to start any major issues or anything, but what I am trying to say about the title of this page is that the term "mainland SE Asia" isn't a term used nearly as commonly as Indochina or the Indochinese peninsular, and Indochina is used much more in modern speech than Mainland S.E Asia. I was doing assignment in geography about the geographical location of "Indochina." Im requesting the change because Indochina or the Indochinese peninsula is its common name, hence why I had an assignment about it. I am aware that the Term 'Mainland SE Asia" is used, but not in commonplace. The term "mainland SE Asia" is usually used to describe the region of Indochina, but not in replace of it. Look up Indochina in quotes on google and you ill find 64,000 results (some about precolonial Indochina, but not the majority.) and if you look up Mainland Southeast Asia in quotes you find a mere 2,000 articles mentioning the phrase. What I'm trying to say here is that "Indochina" is the common term and the popular one. So to call it something else isn't helpful, and can be confusing as for my case. Indochina is not an old fashion term ( I'm 15), and the Term Mainland SE Asia isn't relevant and isn't used by the public which is one of my issues. The terms relevance hasn't been the argument, and the confusion with it is the main issue. I can tell you that I've heard poppycock less than I have Indochina

I Hope you can consider my request and I see some have agreed with my stance, I'm not saying we have to title this page just "Indochina" (as I can see/understand the confusion with the colonial past)but a term like or close to that such as the "Indochina/Indochinese Peninsula", "Post-colonial Indochina", or "Modern Indochina" to avoid confusion both ways. Plus the past arguments had mostly to do with confusion rather than the relevance of the term, suggesting that the relevance of the term wasn't the argument. More merging would also help. Fallywaky (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm completely open to others opinions, compromises', and naming ideas, options, and opinions.

As far as I understand the issue with Indochina or Indochinese peninsula, the main problem is the allusion to the third term: French Indochina. Many in Southeast Asia make stronger connections between the terms Indochina and French Indochina than elsewhere, since they still feel very vivid resentments towards their colonial past. Therefore, they might feel offended by the usage of the term Indochina and they want it to go out of use for the present-day description of the mainland in Southeast Asia altogether. The thing is, so it seems, that for much of the rest of the world the terms Indochina and Indochinese peninsula sound much more (politically) neutral and are not immediately connected to the tragic colonial history of that part of Asia.Cabana (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

As a Southeast Asian, I have no objection to Indochina. I find the confusion mainly coming from westerners who misconstrue Indochina with French Indochina. Mainland Southeast Asia is a valid term which I've often come across in academic circles, but only in specific cases. I only ever see it used to differentiate Maritime Southeast Asia from the mainland region. Otherwise, Mainland Southeast Asia is not often used as a general term. "Indochinese Peninsula" is a descriptive term and should not be the name of an article. It would be like renaming Europe to "European Continent". I'm in favour of renaming the article to Indochina. Morinae (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. One vote has been struck due to it being a confirmed sockpuppet of the nominator and the IP was not commented on in the case. There is consensus that Mainland Southeast Asia (the current article title) is the WP:COMMONNAME and that there are RS to support this. Also there is consensus that the term Indochina could be easily confused with French Indochina, but I am not going to change the redirect _target on Indochina to French Indochina. I will leave it to other editors to BOLDly do if they want too. Also, the merging of Indochina and Mainland Southeast Asia has already been done, so this closure won't comment on this. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Mainland Southeast Asia → Indochina – The term "Mainland Southeast Asia isn't a term used in common speech referring to the region of "Indochina" or the "Indochinese Peninsula" I found this page title confusing, and impractical to viewers and surfers looking for the region commonly and practically known as "Indochina" Fallywaky (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• I support merging Mainland Southeast Asia and Indochina. I do not have a strong opinion on the title of that page; both terms are valid and MSA is not made-up. I wouldn't even mind if Indochina redirected to French Indochina, since the term is strongly associated with the French period. But the most important thing is merging the two articles on the same topic. Srnec (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• I think it's worth mentioning that the terms "Indochina" and "Mainland Southeast Asia" have different scopes: I don't think the former usually includes Thailand, Myanmar or the Malay Peninsula. The article as written covers the broader region, so an article title like "Indochina" would be incorrect. – Uanfala (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. So far I haven't seen any indication that Indochina better satisfies the WP:Article titles guideline, especially since the majority of the term's usage today actually refers to French Indochina. No one commenting above has produced evidence that the term is more commonly used in English-language reliable sources, only conflicting anecdotal comments based on personal observations. Also, the articles should be merged only if a move to Indochina is agreed upon. (I.e. either have separate articles for Indochina and Mainland Southeast Asia/Indochinese Peninsula, or have a single article at Indochina but not elsewhere.) --Paul_012 (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Update: See my in-depth comment below. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose: Mainland Southeast Asia is supported by modern literature and supports modern day nations and their contributions. Indo-China is just a historical link to Indian and Chinese Civilizations. There is a distinction between modern geopolitics and pre-modern history. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC))
• Oppose. The term itself "Mainland Southeast Asia" is clearer than the term "Indochina", which could easily be confused with the countries India and China. By moving this page, meanings could potentially become unclear. Also, looking at the two articles (Mainland Southeast Asia and Indochina) I agree with the above — one article is about the current region, while the other article is about a term used historically. The two are, therefore, separate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly support: The term Indochina is the name the region is generally referred to as. To call it Mainland Southeast Asia is nonsensical and is attempting to force "a new phrase" onto viewers when the vast majority of the population still says Indochina. The term isn't confusing at all because Indochina IS the noun used for the region of Asia( for the most part). I also support merging the pages or deleting or retitling the page now called "Indochina" as it doesn't have much to offer about Indochina.99.67.28.130 (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)— 99.67.28.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• comment - voting from an IP number is not the way to get a suitable conversation resolution JarrahTree 23:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - read this talk page and all the earlier archive - this is a redundant proposal and should be abandonded JarrahTree 23:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly support:This article refers to the Indochinese peninsula & Mainland SE Asia interchangeably. It only refers to the countries on Indochina peninsula/ Indochina. Mainland SE Asia is a broader term and can vary. Indochina peninsula is more specific and recognizable, but it isn’t as common/recognizable as Indochina. I would also support a merge with the current Indochina page.Sksiike,sos (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC) - striking banned confirmed sockpuppet of nominator. See SPI case. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• I have boldly merged the two short articles since I see support for this from AjaxSmack, SMcCandlish, Fallywaky and at least on IP. I have added a hatnote. The problem with having two articles is that it will not always be clear which article an internal link should point to. Better to sort out the terminology in one article. Srnec (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Srnec, since it appears (per my below comment) that "Indochina" is not preferable to "mainland Southeast Asia" for this article, I'm tending to oppose the merger on the grounds that readers landing at "Indochina" should arrive at an immediate explanation of the term's different meanings. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Paul 012, even if Indochina isn't preferable to Mainland Southeast Asia (which I don't dispute), that doesn't establish that they have different meanings. Srnec (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Prefer Srnec's merge, but otherwise support this move, since the article itself has been using the terms interchangeably, and "Indochina" is plain, every English (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:CONCISE), while "Mainland Southeast Asia" is barely attested in RS, and is basically longwinded, hand-waving bureaucratese that no one uses, and which our readers are not looking for (cf. WP:ASTONISH).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for the whole of the literature, but from my own occasional readings in the pre-colonial history, linguistics and culture of the region, the term actually used is "Mainland Southeast Asia", while "Indochina" is almost never encountered. – Uanfala (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe my below comment refutes the above arguments. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments in the previous thread. "Indochina" has a narrower meaning than doesn't match the article's scope, it's been superseded in those fields that I know about, and it carries a distinct baggage of orientalism that should be avoided. – Uanfala (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Taking a look at the University of Washington Library's bibliography list on Southeast Asia, I count fifteen English-language reference works (books or articles) that use "mainland Southeast Asia" in their title.^[a] In contrast, nine have Indochina, but only three use the term to refer to the entire region,^[b] while six are in fact about the countries of French Indochina.^[c] This likely demonstrates that "mainland Southeast Asia" is by far the most commonly used term in English-language reliable sources. ^a Bayard 1984; Higham 1988; Huffman 1985; Iwata 1968; Kammerer et al. 1996; Keyes 1977; Keyes 1987; LeBar et al. 1964; Loofs-Wissowa 1986; Russell 1989; Shorto 1979; Terwiel 1994; Wheatley 1979; Wicks 1985; and Wijeyewardene 1990. ^b Bayard 1980; Keyes 1970 (though this one doesn't include Myanmar); and Scott 1918. ^c Whitmore 1979; Irwin 1937; Janse 1958; Rowland 1992; Chantavanich & Reynolds 1988; and Sutter 1990. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. A bit surprised this is even a topic for debate. Mainland Southeast Asia has been a common term for at least three decades, if not longer. To add to Paul 012's point, to my knowledge, most, if not all, of the major books on Southeast Asian history published in the last 20 to 30 years use "mainland Southeast Asia" (and "maritime Southeast Asia") as preferred terms. See multiple versions of the Cambridge History of Southeast Asia since the 1990s. Google Southeast Asian history books, and you can easily find which term is the modern (non-ambiguous) usage. That said, the fact that the debate is going on shows there are those more familiar with Indochina, and perhaps a section could be added in the article about the usage. Hybernator (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Following Hybernator's statement opposing the move, don't we have consensus to not move the page? Looks like things are going pretty clearly that way. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. To this layman, Indochina means French Indochina and not the broader topic. Article titles should be chosen to help the general reader (such as me). See WP:COMMONNAME. Narky Blert (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Greater Indochina

"Greater Indochina" include places like "Singapore (a civilization)" and places like Bali. 137.59.221.36 (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

French Indochina and British Indochina

Indochina peninsular clearly has two parts French Indochina and British Indochina. 27.3.1.116 (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither has existed for decades. CMD (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis Just because it hasn't been around for decades doesn't mean it never existed. Please respect my edits. 27.3.1.116 (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis to let everyone know that this region used to have two subregions in the past. Vietnamese people still think that Indochina only have three countries: Vietnam (Việt), Lao (Lào) and Cambodia (Cam). Thailand (Thái), Myanmar (Miến) and West Malaysia (Tây Mã) does not belong to this region 27.3.1.116 (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a historical article, it is about a current area. The information you seek is already included in the Terminology section, appropriately put into its historical context. CMD (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Source [2] 27.3.1.116 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That source is in French, and from 1830. It is not very useful for current usage in English. CMD (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis I see you're giving me a hard time. What source is the source, what about how many non-source segments ? 27.3.1.116 (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis this is all i have. Hope you understand. 27.3.1.116 (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I do understand that the term was used in 1830. It is not used now. CMD (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Just because a term is no longer used does not mean it does not warrant mention, though such mentions must be properly contextualised. If the term was only historically used in France as "Indo-Chine britannique", than say it was historically used in France as "Indo-Chine britannique", rather than inventing the term "British Indochina" and describing it in the present tense. The more pressing issue, though, is the verifiability of the claim. The French Wikipedia only says it was used to refer to British Burma, not present-day Thailand and Malaysia. The added source only uses the term in passing when defining other entities, and does not define the term itself, so it cannot be used to support the claim. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As stated above, the warranted mention is already in the Terminology section. There might be room for expansion there, but it should not be included as a present-day descriptor. CMD (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paul 012 So can I write French indochina and the rest ? 27.3.1.116 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The subgroups you added cannot be verified either. It seems your concern is mainly acknowledging the grouping of the former French Indochina countries. I think a simple description following the mention of French Indochina in the Terminology section would suffice. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)