This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia Asia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. South Asia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Southeast Asia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Oceania High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: Physical geography / Human geography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force. This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

1) Why are these countries listed as "may also include"? The term Asia-Pacific refers to the Pacific region that is on the side of Asia/Aus/NZ, hence "Asia-Pacific".

These countries are not included:

   * California
   * Chile
   * Colombia
   * Costa Rica
   * Ecuador
   * El Salvador
   * Guatemala
   * Hawaii
   * Honduras
   * Mexico
   * Nicaragua
   * Panama
   * Peru

Please approve so we can apply the changes to this article.

2) Asia-Pacific should be written with a dash, as it is a bi-word denoting the Asia-Pacific region. The "Asia Pacific" without a dash is not used and is actually avoided as it may confuse people as to the meaning. It is similar in writing "South-East" not "South East". Please approve so we can apply the change to this article.

A smaller article existed with the name Asia-pacific - I merged and redirected them. And yes, I'd agree that countries in the Americas are not included - when they are also included the term used is normally Pacific Rim. BTW, you don't need "approval" - be bold and make the changes! Grutness...wha? 01:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- "Asia-Pacific" is a rather absurd geographical descriptor. It's like creating a "Europe-North Africa" region based on economic exchanges. In reality, the term "Asia-Pacific" does not enjoy wide usage. Rather, it is an artificial construct only used by academics and some politicians in Australia and New Zealand. ZwickauDeluxe 13:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asia-Pacific is also used extensively by corporations to describe their regions of operations. It isn't just an artificial construct used by academics. It is every bit as relevant as a phrases like "The Americas" or "Pacific Rim". Fehrgo 17:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User!

I'm interested in your suggestions, but this article isn't about the countries that's not included.

Thank you, Kiera Wikipedia User

Ok 11KieraPublisher (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per the generally accepted map, shown in the infobox, Afghanistan, Mongolia and parts of Russia may also be included in the Asia-Pacific (show in light green color on the map). However, these are not the core Asia-Pacific countries. Khestwol (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I see that you have already opened a discussion here at the talk page.

Okay, I am aware of the content featured on the map but this page should really just speak about the core Asia-Pacific countries. Having said that, I can also see that the map doesn't have any sources to back up the inclusion of Afghanistan or the Russian Far East. Do you have any credible sources that indicate Afghanistan is an Asia-Pacific country? I live here in the Asia-Pacific and at least where I live, Afghanistan is not considered an Asia-Pacific country. In school we were taught that Asia-Pacific ends at Pakistan. I honestly believe this page should simply speak about the core Asia-Pacific countries/regions (East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Oceania) as opposed to speaking about countries and regions that fall into a grey area. (2001:8003:4E67:F600:D49:54CD:D22B:422C (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Out of goodwill, I have reverted my edits on the page until we reach a consensus. (2001:8003:4E67:F600:D49:54CD:D22B:422C (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Sure but first remove the map for consistency. The map shows all these three countries. Khestwol (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the map needs to be re-edited. (2001:8003:4E67:F600:24E7:3608:BF97:6655 (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@Khestwol: Hello, so do you agree that the map needs to re-edited and that the page should focus solely on the countries that are traditionally accepted as being core Asia-Pacific countries? Also, Mongolia is a core Asia-Pacific country. It's a member of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum and is part of the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA). These are the countries that are considered core-Asia-Pacific countries. (2001:8003:4E67:F600:F5C3:F880:F45D:35D6 (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

The Asia-Pacific definition generally includes all of South Asia, along with East and Southeast Asia and Oceania. Therefore, since Afghanistan is a permanent member of SAARC (South Asia), so I'm in favor of including Afghanistan, at least in light green color. Even if the map is edited for some corrections, Afghanistan needs to stay in my opinion. Khestwol (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Khestwol: Well SAARC is not an indicator of what countries are located in Asia-Pacific. There are no credible sources that indicate Afghanistan is an Asia-Pacific country. We can't just include pieces of information when they have no sources to back them up. Even if it's in light green, it should not be included in the list of countries. That map does not have any source to justify the inclusion of Afghanistan or the Russian Far East, so neither should be listed on this page. Not to mention that Asia-Pacific is increasingly being used as a geopolitical term and it never includes Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not a member of the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement either. The sources I have provided do not support the inclusion of Afghanistan so if you have some sort of credible source that actually supports the inclusion of it, then we can have a look. However, right now there's nothing and I believe it should be removed. The article should speak only about the core Asia-Pacific countries and those are countries that are part of East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Oceania only. (2001:8003:4E67:F600:E43A:C666:B61E:AD7C (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I just noticed that the map has been tagged with "The factual accuracy of this file is disputed". (101.182.139.238 (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

You just mentioned "South Asia". Please note that South Asia always includes Afghanistan. Khestwol (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Khestwol: It doesn't though. Afghanistan is not always included in South Asia. Afghanistan lies in a grey area, sometimes Central Asian sometimes South Asian and sometimes even West Asian. I think you should provide a credible source or reason for why Afghanistan should be listed, considering it's not a core country of the Asia-Pacific. I haven't found anything to support its inclusion, maybe you have? (101.182.120.26 (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Well, although you may be right, but neither the Central Asia nor the Western Asia article includes Afghanistan. Only the South Asia article does (in most definitions). Obviously, we don't have any precise list of countries forming Asia-Pacific. But we only have a rough definition, which includes South Asia, which in turn includes Afghanistan. Khestwol (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Khestwol: Well the Afghanistan articles says, "...officially the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, is a landlocked country located in South-Central Asia" so it clearly indicates that the country is part of Central Asia and it reflects common perceptions of where Afghanistan lies (sometimes in Central Asia, sometimes in South Asia). Okay but that's your defintion of "South Asia". Afghanistan isn't always included in the definition of South Asia. In early high chool, it is mandatory for Australian students to learn about the Asia-Pacific and as part of the curriculum Afghanistan is not included and thus isn't included in the South Asia section. That just goes to show that the definition of "South Asia" changes and in the case of Asia-Pacific, it doesn't include Afghanistan because it's not one of the core countries of the region. Like I said, Afghanistan is not always included in South Asia so to use your subjective definition of the region and apply to this case with no sources makes no sense. We're supposed to follow the information provided by sources. I provided a precise list of Asia-Pacific countries and it only includes, East, South and Southeast Asian countries and the countries of Oceania. Afghanistan, unfortunately, is not listed there so unless we can find something that lists Afghanistan then I don't see how it should be included as of now. Everything must have sources and as of now there's nothing for Afghanistan. So we need to find a source if we're going to keep Afghanistan. (2001:8003:4E7A:200:30B9:2BB1:C78E:89CD (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Please keep in mind that the lede of the article Afghanistan is currently disputed. Please see talk: Afghanistan#Location in South Asia where me and several other users suggested the lede's claim about "South-Central Asia" is wrong and poorly sourced -- they want it to state "Afghanistan is a landlocked country in South Asia." In fact, after a few weeks, I may start a formal RfC to settle the lede. Khestwol (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Khestwol: Okay but now you're just taking this discussion off topic, let's focus on what this discussion is about. What I tried to put forward before was that the core Asia-Pacific countries should be listed meaning those shaded in light green on the map and are not supported by any source should not be listed. It appears to be that you don't agree with that anymore, is that right? So if we're focusing on sources, do you have any source to support your claim that Afghanistan should be included in the list of Asia-Pacific countries? We need a credible source. (2001:8003:4E7A:200:BD2C:FE1E:712:E624 (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I found some sources which include Afghanistan in the list of Asia-Pacific countries. For example, the UN Human Rights Programme for the Asia-Pacific Region, see this link. It mentions Afghanistan at the top, along with 38 other countries from South, East and Southeast Asia and Oceania. Hope it helps. Khestwol (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Khestwol: Apologies for the late reply. Okay, I think that's an appropriate source to use to support its inclusion. I think we need more sources to boost credibility because one source isn't appropriate but for now I think it's okay. Thanks for the link. (2001:8003:4E7A:200:E98D:6E10:A2C8:F47B (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I have removed the Iran note because Iran is never considered to be a part of South Asia apart from the UN definition. No organisation or people who live in South Asia consider Iran to be geographically, politically or culturally a part of South Asia and I think it's wise to stick to the traditional definition of the region. One definition from an organisation that is not based in South Asia proper should yield a note. Speaking of definitions, Afghanistan too is not considered to be a part of South Asia from a South Asian perspective (e.g. official definition of South Asia from SAARC).

• Explained in my talk page. 120.16.215.123 (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This note was inserted a long time ago, no one is disputing it except you. Please be respectful to other editors in the community. Since you are the one who started reverting other editor's work first, you have not right to ask them not reverting your edit back to the undisputed version. You should refrain from starting and engaging in an edit war by not making any more controversial edits before a consensus is reached. You will be reported if you continue to treat Wikipedia like your own personal blog and threaten other people to follow rules made by you. 2001:8003:9008:1301:581D:97A:EFAE:363B (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:8003:9008:1301:581D:97A:EFAE:363B: This is NOT the original edit for this page. It was added in later on and it has been disputed by me and thus it needs discussion. Please familiarise yourself with the rules of Wikipedia and understand the fact that when new information is challenged and removed then it must be discussed. This is exactly what I have done so don't claim that I am treating this page like a personal blog and threaten to report me. Please learn the rules of Wikipedia before you start making edits to this site. (Sapah3 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Your argument doesn't make any sense, man. On the one hand, you said we should look at all the reliable sources, on the other hand, you have deliberately avoided treating the United Nations geoscheme as a reliable source. The UN geoscheme is the main source used in the article subregion, which is the main article concerning continental subdivisions in Wikipedia. When editing geography articles, this is the most widely used source we have. If a controversial entry like Iran is involved, we NEED to make a note to inform the readers in order to avoid any potential confusion.

You said you made your decision to exclude Iran from South Asia after putting all the reliable sources into consideration, but who gives you the right to make such decision? We are supposed to report the facts based on the reliable sources, not making decisions on what should and what shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia.

You argument actually contradicts your action, if all the reliable sources are treated equally, then we definitely should insert this note as a clarification. You are so weird, man. It is so sad that Wikipedia is now dominated by a few paranoids who will always win by persistently enforcing other people to "follow their rules" while being a master at making inverted accusations against anyone who disagrees with them, but in real life, people like you are not even qualified to edit a proper encyclopedia. Now, Wikipedia is being treated with ever-declining credibility. Look what have you done, man? 2001:8003:9008:1301:D966:B4C7:E4BC:8BC1 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note It appears to be that both @120.16.215.123: and @2001:8003:9008:1301:581D:97A:EFAE:363B: are the same user. You both geolocate to the same city of Perth, Australia and are both listed as "Static IP" users. If this is the case point out to everybody else that you are the same user. (Sapah3 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

So what? You want to launch a private investigation against a few IP users? With more than 2 million residents, Perth is the most isolated major city in the world. Most of us have nothing to do in our spare time, so 90% of the Perthlings go online and edit various articles in Wikipedia as a hobby. Do you have a problem with that? 2001:8003:9008:1301:D966:B4C7:E4BC:8BC1 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't believe that a guy with this and this kind of spam edits would receive any sort of respect in Wikipedia. You are such a turd. 2001:8003:9008:1301:D966:B4C7:E4BC:8BC1 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). The request as stated there was about user conduct and 3O does not issue opinions about user conduct. Moreover, like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. So far what's been said here is mainly about conduct and procedure, with very little discussion about why the edit is good or bad and certainly no content discussion which is thorough. IP editor: If you want to avoid discussions about whether additions to talk pages under different IP addresses are the same or different people, register an account. Otherwise the question of whether sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is occurring is often going to be relevant. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:8003:9008:1301:d966:b4c7:e4bc:8bc1: Firstly, your behaviour is completely atrocious and inappropriate. You do not harass and attack fellow editors. Secondly, do not judge my edits without understanding the context and claim that I’m spamming Wikipedia because that is not what I’m doing. My edit about Singapore is because Singapore is not part of the East Asian Cultural Sphere. To claim no Singaporean will not agree with my edit makes no sense because you’re most likely not Singaporean, you don’t have any connection to the country or have read enough about the country. Singaporeans are mostly of Chinese, Malay and Indian (Tamil) descent and this mix of groups has shaped Singaporean culture. Also, we follow what sources say. No source supports the claim that Singapore is an East Asian Cultural Sphere country. My other edit is perfectly valid because there is a source next to it that supports the inclusion of the term “Monsoon Asians”. So DO NOT ever attack another editor again and learn how to behave yourself when you’re on Wikipedia. Sapah3 (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I must disagree with the latest edits implying Myanmar and the Indian subcontinent are not generally included in Asia-Pacific.207.255.243.110 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC) There are several sources suggesting they are. Here they are:[reply]

https://dkiapcss.edu/about/ap-countries/

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/apac-countries

And here is a link to a Wikipedia article about the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement. Sri Lanka, India, and Bangladesh all signed it. Further evidence that the Indian subcontinent is part of Asia-Pacific

https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Asia-Pacific_Trade_Agreement207.255.243.110 (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.243.110 (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

Fixed. Vic Park (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are sources outlining lists of Asia-Pacific countries. Clearly South Asia and Russia are included:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/apac-countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B07C:E3F4:F406:9F2B:25D9:7271 (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The whole of South Asia should be excluded, because its countries are rather close to the Indian Ocean. As for Russia, its Far East region is the only region of the country included as one of the Asia-Pacific countries, the same way the East and Northeast regions in China as the only regions include the Asia-Pacific region. Anonymy365248 (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to keep Azerbaijan and Turkey in the article as part of Asia-Pacific, since eventhough they are transcontinental countries, part of those countries are in Asia. Further rationale to keep them are as follow:

1. taken from Azerbaijan: While often politically aligned with Europe, Azerbaijan is generally considered to be at least mostly in Southwest Asia geographically with its northern part bisected by the standard Asia–Europe divide, the Greater Caucasus. The United Nations classification of world regions places Azerbaijan in Western Asia; the CIA World Factbook places it mostly in Southwest Asia [1] and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary places it in both; NationalGeographic.com, and Encyclopædia Britannica also place Azerbaijan in Asia.
2. taken from Turkey : Turkey bridges Southeastern Europe and Western Asia. Asian Turkey, which includes 97% of the country's territory, is separated from European Turkey by the Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles. European Turkey comprises 3% of the country's territory. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey and Azerbaijan are clearly European countries and should not be part of the Asia-Pacific. Because today it is common for the world to see Turkey and Azerbaijan as part of Europe. Therefore, there are many reasons to follow the trend of considering Turkey and Azerbaijan as part of Europe. park chang hyuk 15:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smy987 (talk • contribs)

Even though Azerbaijan and Turkey are politically closer to Europe, geographically, the majority of both countries' territories are situated in Asia. Also since this article is about geography, we should not ignore geographical facts solely because of political issues. Ckfasdf (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still, Turkey and Azerbaijan should be excluded from the Asia-Pacific. Historically, geographically, and politically, Azerbaijan and Turkey belong only to Europe. park chang hyuk 23:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smy987 (talk • contribs)

Geographically... Turkey, Azerbaijan and Gergia IS part of Asia, West Asia to be exact. Turkey is mainly located in Anatolia and Azerbaijan is mainly located in South Caucasus Ckfasdf (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a list, I don't see why these countries would be excluded, but I'm not sure how the list helps if it's just a relisting of countries in Asia. In particular for the western areas, the concept often not does not extend that far, so the list is perhaps undue in that respect, especially as it appears above the more core Pacific list. CMD (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If "undue" is the reason than we should not even list "Western Asia" in the article, since Asia-Pacific term rarely cover western Asia countries. And if it was just a list, I agree no reason why those countries to be excluded. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]