Talk:Indo-Pacific

Oceans Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays 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.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Oceans To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Draft:Terrance (octopus)
Update : Botany Bay, Wilkins Sound, Mariana Trench, Challenger Deep
Verify : Antarctic Circumpolar Current, Bering Sea, Gulf of Aden, Iceberg B-15, Ionian Sea, Japan Trench, Moreton Bay, Sound (geography), Timor Sea
Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from Aral Sea; check La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from MS Estonia

Ecoregions Mid‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Ecoregions, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of ecoregions. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on these topics. See WikiProject Ecoregions and Wikipedia:FAQ/Contributing.EcoregionsWikipedia:WikiProject EcoregionsTemplate:WikiProject EcoregionsEcoregions articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economic or biological

While the biogeographic term may be older, if the current (US-led) rise in usage as an economic / geopolitical span endures, the introduction and balance of this article will need to be revised to reflect that. Onanoff (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolitcal

Given the existence of articles like Free and Open Indo-Pacific, at what point should the geopolitical concept get its own article? There is a ton of analysis out there that could be cited to fill it out. The older term is probably superseded.

Proposed merge of Free and Open Indo-Pacific into Indo-Pacific#Geopolitical context

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion is not merged. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content overlap points to a prospective merge.

talk) 10:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Indo-Pacific has a well-established meaning and long use in biogeography. It has recently been used a lot as a geopolitical term, with an indistinct and overlapping geography. Perhaps it's time for this article to be split into two - Indo-Pacific or Indo-Pacific realm, and Indo-Pacific (geopolitics) – so both can be fully developed. Merging these two sections as you propose sounds like a fine idea, but perhaps in a new article focused on the geopolitical uses of Indo-Pacific. Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Free and Open Indo-Pacific is a very specific concept and deserves its own article. UlyssorZebra (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per above. Indo-Pacific is mainly a biogeographic term while Free and Open Indo-Pacific is a geopolitical term initiated by the recently-assassinated Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. 2001:8003:9008:1301:FC5F:C6D7:96E4:CC45 (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Adding data

Component areas and Main countries and territories data. Similarly to

Asia-Pacific page. Doremon764 (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Irrelevant defence of Haushofer

"The Australian Citizens Party, a minor third party associated with the LaRouche movement, criticises the "Indo-Pacific" vision as a reenactment of Nazi strategy, given the concept's link to Karl Haushofer.[32] Haushofer, however, developed the "Indo-Pacific" vision in the interwar period, not during the Second World War." - What is the relevance of the fact he developed it in the interwar period? Nazism and fascism already existed in the interwar period. Indeed, the Nazis were in power for part of the interwar period, and even before they came to power, there existed various people with pro-Nazi or Nazi-adjacent views. 89.160.9.178 (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]