Talk:Clash of Civilizations/Archive 1

Untitled
Move to talk for elaboration. I don't see how this thesis applies to the Taiwan straits. Arguing that Taiwan is Chinese, doesn't explain the situation, nor does arguing that Taiwan is Western explain things like the fact that the United States has limited support for Chen Shuibian.


 * Some other events which have vindicated Huntington include the role played by the United States and other Western countries in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the Western concern over whether Iran's nuclear program will result in Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, the crisis in the Taiwan Straits, the problems in Kosovo, and the continuing problems in Cyprus.

User:Roadrunner

I signed your comment above.

I'm guessing that what the author of the above passage was trying to get at was that the Taiwan Straits conflict is one between the PRC (a Sinic civilization) and the United States (a Western civilization). --Lowellian 18:55, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

That's one interpretation, but it's one that hardly vindicates Huntington's thesis. Huntington's thesis would not account for the fact that the US has at times tilted (however slightly) toward Beijing in the last year.

Roadrunner 19:41, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

This needs to be attributed. Who thinks this?


 * Universalizing civilizations include: The West, Orthodox-Slavic (to some degree), and the Islamic civilization.  Particularistic civilizations that stress differences among peoples include: China (though with some semi-universalizing traits), Japan, and to some degree the Hindu civilization.  Therefore the critics of the theory often demonstrate its predicition through subtle synthesis.

Roadrunner 19:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Nizhny Novgorod:

I am the author of the "universalizing civilizations" section. I also wrote the "Modernizing without Westernizing". I have recently registered this account (after I wrote the section). If anyone has any advice on changes/improvements I will alter the section. I also know the person who wrote the Taiwan Strait section on this article. He thinks that the Taiwan Strait section should be edited or perhaps removed however he wants to keep the rest of section (Cyprus, Kosovo, et al).

Nizhny Novgorod: I added a section entitled: "Possible resolution of the conflict."

''The German science of geography has pointed out that Huntington's regions of "civilizations" are affected by the concept of the "Kulturerdteile" (culture-continents) of the geographer Albert Kolb - a deprecated theory from 1962. In this theory, the effect of religious aspects were less important than historical and social aspects.'' Am I the only one for whom that passage carries no meaning? --Christofurio 20:18, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Indo-Pak conflict not a clash of civilizations
There seems to be a mistake when you classify India & Pakistans war as a clash of two different civilizations. Most modern-day Pakistanis are descendents of Indian Hindus who converted (or were compeld to convert) to Islam. The basic population of Pakistan & of North India is or Aryan stalk. The language Urdu used by Pakistanis and Indian Muslims is nothing but Hindi loaded with Arabic words & written in Persian script.Moreover you cannot distinguish between Indian Muslims who number 160million and Pakistanis. Hence even though Pakistanis dont accept it they are a part of Indian Culture. So India & Pakistan conflict can be termed as a clash within a civilization not clash of civilizations.


 * According to the author Pakistan is the Islamic sphere of civilizations. The article is about his theory. :ChrisG 18:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Value of ON content and quality of reference
The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Voltairnet
Voltairnet is not an encyclopedic source of information. Moreover, the article linked to does not deal with the topic of this article directly, rather it is an extended and sensationalized polemic about U.S.-Islamic interactions. Needless to say, this is only a very small piece of Huntington's theory. The Voltairnet link ought not be kept. &mdash;thames 21:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, my edit was not intended to re-inserted the link that thames had removed, but merely to correct the link internal link to the Réseau Voltaire set by User:Didier Marie . I am not competent to discuss the issue of the inclusion of this link or not, and do not intend to.
 * As a general principle, I do not approve of sensationalistic and extremist links overflowing legitimate ones. Rama 14:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

French Riots
Could we get some sources for these claims? Huntington writes about immigration and might agree with some of these ideas, but the clash of civilizations is a bit more specific and focused on geopolitics. Tfine80 23:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As you stated, Huntington has written about Civilizational/cultural clash within individual nations, specifically in "Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity". Huntington also refers to culturally/'civilizationally' 'torn' nations in his Clash of Civilizations thesis itself. The French Muslim situation is textbook Huntington. 144.136.217.39

Israel
Where does Huntington place Israel in his theory? It's in the Mideast but seems to me to be more a Jewish part of the Western world in some ways, or a Jewish part of the Mideast in some other ways. 204.52.215.107 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What is meant by "...West's...inability to unify and even a decadent society, risked significant dangers"
I am not sure what is meant by the sentence: The demographic decline of the West, combined with its inability to unify and even a decadent society, risked significant dangers.

Can someone who has read Huntingtn clarify? Is the following rewrite accurate: "The demographic decline of the West, combined with its inability to present a united front, and a state that Huntington considers decadent mean the West will face significant dangers."

Texteditor 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, though the decadence aspect is less important in Huntington's theory. The main aspects are the demographic decline against a demographic boom for other cultures, especially in how this weakens Western states (e.g. rise of Hispanic population in U.S. and even more outstandingly the rise of Muslim population in Europe), and trans-Atlantic tension that weakens the West's respose to other civilizations. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Another bit that's hard to understand
What is this all about? "Clash of Civilizations critics often target traditional culture and internal reformers who do not wish to Westernize whilst modernizing. They sometimes claim that to modernize is to necessarily become Westernized to a very large extent. Those who consider the Clash of Civilizations thesis accurate often offer in refutation of its argument the example of Japan, claiming that is not a Western state at its core."

Why would those who consider the thesis accurate offer a refutation of its arguments? Something has gone wrong here, but I can't edit it because I find these sentences incomprehensible in their current form. Can someone who understands what is intended please edit this bit so that the meaning is clear? Metamagician3000 08:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily: the theory of a "Clash of Civilisations" says that unavoidable conflicts are born from a fundamental incompatibility of cultures. Arguing that traditional cultures become hostile to the Western culture when confronted to the necessity to modernise removes this burden from a hypothetical fundamental incompatibility, and puts the blame on the fact that any traditional culture in the modernisation phase will feel "westernised". This explains why countries and people of traditional cultures sometimes seem to have a deep hostility to the Western culture, without using any sort of fundamental incompatibility in the explanation. Rama 08:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it should be "this argument" (referring to the one in the pervious sentence). The point is that unlike some development theorists who equate modernization and Westernization, Huntington focuses his definition of "Western" on Christianity and the liberal tradition, and not especially markets and capitalism. Thus in Huntington's model, while non-Western states might adopt some institutions from the West as they modernize, they will retain their own civilizational identity. While a lot of third-world reformers want to Westernize their countries in order to modernize, Huntington sees any explicit program to Westernize a country as extremely likely to fail (cf. his thoughts on core countries). Christopher Parham (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph in the light of the above comments. What is there now makes sense to me, at least. :) Would you folks like to check it and see if you think it is right, and whether you can improve it? Metamagician3000


 * Aside from a few typos, that edit looked solid, I think it brings out the point well. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about the typos. I just fixed another one. Metamagician3000 06:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Language of the Bird
"Civilization is a damned good thing, if somebody would try it" Charlie Parker (1920 - 1955) (84.192.176.157 11:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

Japan as a separate civilization is a flawed assertion
Taking Japan out of East Asian civilization is one of the weakest points of Huntington's argument. Because if he does not separate Japan from East Asian civilization ("Sinic" as Huntington calls it), then he has to explain the Sino-Japanese and Korean-Japanese tensions in the world today. Huntington arbitrarily takes Japan out of East Asian civilization as a matter of intellectual convenience.


 * From Journal of World Systems Research, Volume 4, Number 2 (Fall 1998):


 * "In his original Foreign Affairs article (Huntington 1993), Huntington designated China, along with a number of nearby smaller countries who have been influenced by its culture, as Confucianist. Perhaps belatedly realizing that hardly anyone in China now refers to themselves as a "Confucianist" and that China has spent most of the past century in rebellion against its own traditional culture, Huntington resorts, in his book, to the even more ambiguous label of "Sinic" to designate this part of the world. Huntington regards Japan as a unique civilization all by itself, despite the heavy influence of China in Japan's history and culture and Japan's adoption of Western-style political institutions over the past half century. Huntington is typically vague about the particular cultural features that ostensibly distinguish Japan so uniquely from other civilizations."

There exist several points that are problematic in taking Japan out of East Asia:

First, Japan still uses the Chinese script (the Japanese use it far more than the "Sinic" Koreans and Vietnamese) and Japan's literary tradition absolutely depends on the mastering of Chinese characters. 65% of modern Japanese vocabulary have Sinitic origins, the remainder being native Japanese and Western loanwords. Western civilization is dependent upon the Latin alphabet, Orthodox civilization is dependent on the Cyrillic alphabet, Hindi civilization is dependent upon Sanskrit derivative scripts, and Islamic civilization is strongly influenced by the Arabic script. This leaves "Japanese civilization" the only non-derivative, core-state civilization whose main script depends on that of another civilization ("Sinic" or East Asian civilization). This is a glaring inconsistency that is only weakly glossed over by Huntington.

Second, and perhaps the most important point, Japanese thought immediately preceding its modernization was directly influenced by its contemporary Chinese thinkers. In other words, many aspects of contemporaneous Chinese thought paved the way for Japan to modernize, and strongly influenced the formation of Japanese identity in the modern era. This is in direct contrast to Huntington's cariculture-like assertion that Japan while being influenced by China in its early history, was able to develop into an independent civilization in the second millennium. The reality is that 15th and 16th century Chinese neo-Confucian intellectuals like Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming (Oyomei in Japanese) continued to strongly influence Japanese neo-Confucianists like Ogyu Sorai and reformers like Matsudaira Sadanobu, and paved the way intellectually for anti-Confucianists like Motoori Norinaga. In Asia, it was the Chinese thinker Wang Yangming who first in the 16th century argued the existence of innate knowing (that every person from birth knows the difference between good and evil, that such knowledge was intuitive and cannot be completely rationalized). His ideas inspired what is today considered the Japanese "samurai ethic." Copying Wang Yangming ideas, Motoori Norinaga in his pursuit of characterizing an unique identity for the Japanese argued that the Japanese people alone, because of their Shinto deities, had an intuitive ability to distinguish good and evil without complex rationalization. Norinaga argued that the Chinese Confucianists were too fixated on reason and rationalized virtue, and that the heritage of ancient Japan was one of natural spontaneity in feelings and spirit. Not only did Norinaga adopt Wang Yangming's ideas wholesale, his philological methodology (critical reading of ancient texts) was also similar to Chinese and Japanese neo-Confucianists like Zhu Xi and Sorai. Norinaga's ideas would later play a critical role in the Meiji government during Japan's modernization.

Third, the modernization of "Sinic" societies in the last two decades such as South Korea, Taiwan and even mainland China have blasted another gaping hole through Huntington's decision to take Japanese civilization out of East Asian civilization. Chinese society today in an era of rapid economic growth is looking ever more similar to Meiji Japan a hundred years ago.


 * Huntington in 1993 wrote in the Foreign Affairs article: "Apart from Japan, the West faces no economic challenge." This statement would be laughed out of the room today considering the economic rise of China, a new development that Huntington could not predict in 1993.

Huntington's decision of taking Japan out of East Asian civilization amounts to a cop-out. Naus 07:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The point being? Christopher Parham (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just some points to demonstrate that the criteria of Huntington's proposed civilizational delineations are not clear. Huntington is a poor historian, especially on East Asian history. Being a less than careful historian weakens his overall argument since his entire theory is about the clash between civilizations; arbitrarily delineating civilizations makes his theory about as relevant as the chicken and egg debate, it's circular reasoning. Naus 07:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you refer to decent sources, you can add it in the criticism section. Good work. Sijo Ripa 15:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Here's an excerpt of the abstract of an article ("On Huntington's Civilizational Paradigm: A Reappraisal") published in Issues & Studies (Taiwan) by Myonsob Kim and Horace Jeffery Hodges in June 2005. The article itself is 30 pages long and goes into more detail.
 * "Second comes a negative reappraisal of the Huntingtonian civilizational paradigm, especially in the East Asian context. Huntington seems to be exaggerating in arguing that "Babelization prevails over universalization." Even though predictions of cultural homogenization were wrong, the centrifugal process has not at all tended toward a Tower of Babel, pure cultural anarchy. There have surely been gravitational forces restraining the centrifugal tendencies and organizing them. We have also some reservations about the accuracy of Huntington’s paradigm regarding East Asia. Huntington seems to have drawn arbitrary civilizational fault lines through East Asian civilization. Huntington's simplification of the whole of East Asia (excluding Japan) as "Sinic" overlooks the strong resistance against the Sino-monocentric order. Huntington's logic in recognizing Japan as a civilization also raises many questions." Naus 20:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me guess: Naus is one of those Chinese folks who contends that everyone on earth should be required to call China by the name Zhōngguó (Central Country) or Zhōnghuá (Central Efflorescence). Am I correct?


 * Although I am not by any means trying to support Huntington's thesis of a looming "clash of civilizations," I do believe that there are valid reasons for considering Japan, its people, and their culture to be rather distinct and separate from those of continental East Asia, or those societies that were classified as "Sinic" in Huntington's analysis. The cultural (not to mention genetic) differences between the Sinic world as a whole and Japan are much more significant than any internal differences between the Sinic societies of China, Korea, and Vietnam. For example, the contrast between the Sinic and Japanese views of familial relationships is just as great as that between, say, the Sinic and Western European views on the matter. Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese have specific names for every relative, distinguishing those on the paternal from those on the maternal side, out to at least the fourth degree of consanguinity, if I am not mistaken. This is because the traditional family structure in these societies is one of an extended clan, in which every member has a publicly recognized relationship to all the other members of his clan, and he is expected to be partial to the members of his clan, and even take responsibility for them (financially or otherwise) when requested to do so. This is completely different from Japanese society, which is structured in a manner much more similar to the societies of Western Europe, in which the nuclear family is the fundamental unit of society. The Sinic worldview can be summed up by the saying, "Blood is thicker than water," while the Japanese worldview is best expressed by the Japanese expression, tooku-no shinrui-yori chikaku-no tanin ((One ought to concern oneself more with) a nearby stranger rather than a distant kinsman).


 * As for the writing systems of these societies, you have obviously failed to recognize the important contrast between the traditional use of Chinese characters in the Sinic civilizations and their use in the Japanese civilization: the Sinic civilizations used Chinese characters either as their sole form of written language or otherwise used them to transcribe words of Sinitic etymology; historically, the Japanese used Chinese characters mostly to represent words of native Japanese etymology according to their kun'yomi, or else they did not use Chinese characters at all, generally preferring to use the kana syllabaries for works of Japanese poetry or literature. True Chinese writing was used in Japan only for the composition of Chinese-style poetry (a sort of stilted cultural pursuit of the upper classes, much like the study and composition of English prose is for the Japanese of today), diplomatic correspondence with foreign governments, and the copying and transmission of Buddhist scriptures. To put it succinctly, Chinese language has never achieved a position in Japanese culture beyond the position of Latin in medieval Europe, or English in the world of the present day: it has always been a decidedly foreign language, studied by people of means for academic, ecclesiastical, or other reasons. Among the Sinic cultures of Korea and Vietnam, however, Chinese language has wielded a degree of influence on par with or even exceeding that of Norman French on the English language, with words and idioms of direct Chinese extraction being used commonly in everyday speech. For example, Modern Korean does not even have a native word for "tomorrow," as this concept is indicated exclusively by the Chinese-derived word 내일 nay-ir (來日).


 * Please don't try to counter that Modern Japanese makes extensive use of Chinese character compounds; although that is true, the overwhelming majority of such Chinese character-based compounds are neologisms coined by educated Japanese around the time of the Meiji Restoration in the mid-19th century. Many of these Chinese character-based neologisms have subsequently been loaned to the Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese languages, often through the vector of students from these Sinic cultures who have gone overseas to Meiji Period Japan for education (especially in the case of the Chinese) or through direct social and cultural influence from Japan (especially in the case of the Koreans). This phenomenon is equivalent to a modern Italian or Greek scientist's making use of taxonomic vocabulary or other Latin- or Classical Greek-based neologisms coined by ethnic German, British, Russian, or American scientists. The fact that these neologisms are based on Sinitic, Latin, or Classical Greek etyma does not change the fact that they were invented by individuals of Japanese, Dutch, Jewish, Czech, or other ethnocultural affiliation. Numerous languages around the world have absorbed a great number of words of Latin, Greek, Russian, German, or English etymology for use as academic or scientific terminology; this does not necessarily place the societies that use such terminology any closer to the Western European or Huntington's so-called "Orthodox" cultural spheres, although it is certainly indicative of a certain degree of cultural and linguistic contact and interaction at some point in history.


 * Besides, Huntington himself opines that the Japanese civilization is the product of a hybridization of native Japanese traditions and traditions that were introduced through contact with the Sinic cultural sphere. He is not claiming that Japan has remained completely isolated from continental influence. However, Japan's unique geographical situation has certainly helped it to preserve and develop some important cultural (and other) differences from the societies of continental East Asia. The influence of the cultures of certain regions of ancient Korea, in particular, has profoundly affected the historical development of the Japanese people and civilization; however, this ancient influence was like that of the introduction of a foreign seed to a new continent, where it may later grow and develop, perhaps hybridize with a native strain, and be bred to become an entirely novel and unique variety. This certain degree of ancient influence does not consign the people and culture of Japan to be eternally affiliated with the peoples and cultures of East Asia, located hundreds of kilometers away across the open ocean. Ebizur 04:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Some quotes of Huntington regarding China:
 * "I think it makes sense to try to contain China and limit the expansion of Chinese influence in other Asian countries."


 * "One doesn't know whether that economic growth will continue at its recent rates, and China may well go into an economic slide."

Huntington clearly has ulterior intentions. In fact one can argue that his entire thesis of the Clash of Civilizations is designed to target specifically against the muslims and Chinese. He is clearly confusing Communism in China with the Chinese civilization, and that's a shame. Chinese civilizational influence on other Asian countries is millennia long, if Huntington believes the US has the capacity to limit Chinese influence in Asia as China grows, he is in a for a sharp awakening. 69.214.107.84 19:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Biography
I came across an interview on Booknotes where SPH mentions the arrival of the Huntingtons in the U.S. in 1633. This may be of interest but I'm not sure where you would put that. It may have some bearing on his world view.Abu Amaal 03:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE is full of wrongly worded phrases that dont make sense
"Whereas, Western civilization includes both Protestant and Catholic branches; and the Germanic and Romance cultural differences in Western Europe are also disregarded"? WTF is that about? this article needs serious attention from a competent person familiar with both huntington and english

Current media use vs Huntington's title/thesis
This isn't mean to be political, only an observation. In the course of the War on Terror "Clash of Civilizations" has become almost a cachet for the conflict with Islamism. Certainly Islamism itself does see it that way from their perspective on history - and destiny. What struck me while pondering various news bits today, knitting them together as it were, is that the US seems unaware of the scale of the game which goes far beyond two civilizations. However the various spheres of civilization are defined or distinguished, the urgent fact of the increasingly global community - the immediacy of everywhere else, and the growing similarities and convergence of all civilizations; either in a violent dialectic, or one that comes to a peaceful resolution - the most unlikely of all outcomes, unfortunately. Add onto to that the growing planetary emergency of global warming, and there's a lot at stake in the bigger game.

It's not the doom and gloom that must all sound like a listing of that I'm concerned with here; I've grown used to it. What I'm raising is the notion that the current public usage of it - in the US media arena, that the theme of civilization-clash (wie sagt es auf Deutsch, bitte?) is limited in that usage to Islam vs Christendom - as if nothing else were a problem. Well, other than North Korea, but that also involves China directly, unlike Afghanistan, where China's interests are in maintaining the stability of its own Islamic populations just east and northeast of there; so supporting the American cause from there over to the MidEast is in China's best interests. India cannot take part because of its own Islamic neighbour-state, only recently being drawn into peace talks (perhaps by the American presence in the region, as a precaution; a united subcontinent would be immensely more powerful than a divided one - as Gandhi and Nehru knew. It is interesting that Europe, even Russia, is almost a bystander in the whole affair in terms of the realpolitik; the cause is American geopolitics, not European but as with China it may be the only way to stem the variour problems with Islamism in their own nations, and also in global tactical terms; for a united Europe is, too, potentially a global superpower on the same order as China or the United States or - soon, again - Russia (if not as part of Europe, that is).

The Great Game is afoot, for those out there who know their 19th Century diplomacy; only there's more players now than there were then, and the weaponry is at lot nastier and potentially world-destroying if ever used (by any side, but a launch would never be only one side....).

Sorry for the long digression; I know this isn't a blogging page and I don't mean to overly rhapsodize on world politics; it only strikes me that the scale of Huntington's thesis or the multi-civilization geopolitic of the current era is a very different sense of "clash of civilizations" than in the way that CNN, Time and others have used and repeated it; taking the title of the book, but only one geopolitical theme and coopting the phrase to a purely binary meaning; almost apocalyptic in tone sometimes in its use, but I don't mean to politicize. The idea is that the page should reflect something to the effect that the popular usage - as derived from or directedd by media usage - is different from the full scope of what's in the book. I note that the "Recent issues" section is entirely West vs. Islam events; giving the impression that the clash of civilizations is only about that dialectic, and no other forces are at play, as if there were no other players in the game.

What was a simple observation was not meant to become an essay; the essence is that there is a divergence between how this (and Hayakawa's title) can be so easily taken out of context, and are; and that listing of civilization-clash events in other eras and regions, both current and historical; those connected with the US-themed usage of "clash of civilizations" could be so grouped as "current American media use" (and, well, like I said, where Al-Queda is coming from on their end is also a clash of civilizations; that's how they define themselves) and that the rest of the list would be the US vs China in the western Pacific, or the Islam-Christendom thing in sub-Saharan Africa (in which Darfur is only the latest pawn in the game), and so on.

I'll leave it at that, and hope someone can condense my thoughts, if they're worthwhile, into Wikipedia-style text, which my habitual writing/thinking style isn't. If this should be on some other page somewhere and does not fit in terms of usage of this Talk page let me know and I'll move/remove it elsewhere.Skookum1 02:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Toynbee vs. Huntington
No doubt the common currency of the phrase "Clash of Civilizations" is due to Huntington's book and thesis; but is his thesis all that original in historiography? I'm thinking back to Toynbee's extensive works on "spheres of civilization" and the ways they have interacted over the centuries; and are bound to. Classical geopolitics - Ratzel, the shatterbelt theorists, and others, also deal with the concept of "clash of civilizations", and I'd even venture that this easy-to-construct phrase is not of Huntington's coinage. Not that this is Da Vinci Code vs Holy Blood and Holy Grail, only that perhaps this article shouldn't be so focussed on the contemporary account as popularized by Huntington, but also make at least some comment that the ideas expressed were already current in histographical/geopolitical circles before popularized to the masses in best-seller form...Skookum1 19:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And all that by way of someone's suggestion for a map; Toynbee's vintage works have several that would be suitable....Skookum1 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

introduction of discussion of civilizations
fictitious name:angel right/05.07.2006/09:10 U T C

the last president of iran has set forth the discussion of civilizations. approximately most of the world, accepted this opinion. but i did not hear that anyone found it out or declared that he has decided to introduce the islamic civilisation not iranian civilisation. he decided to mix the original ancient iranian culture and civilization with imported islamic orders and introduce it as iranian civilization. in the event that the iranian original ancient religion has been zoroastrian not islam. i as an iranian and approximately all real iranians are impatiently waiting a real discussion of civilations with permition of defend of national civilization to any non government defender. we request of any powerfull ternational society to provide this opportunity. thanks, angel right --84.11.38.68 16:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

World map
Are you sure everything's OK with the map? Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina are coloured in red ("Western Christendom"), when in fact they're Muslim-majority countries that don't have stronger ties with Western culture than other Southeastern European countries. Especially Albania has nothing to do with the West, and Bosnia certainly isn't more "Western" than Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.

I know the theory is controversial, not quite up-to-date with current events (e.g. EU enlargement, economic development and geopolitical stance of Balkan countries) and all, but did Huntington actually specify Albania and Bosnia as part of the Western world in the book? I see no reason that they should be in red and not "lone" like Turkey (as secular Muslim and, in the case of Albania, until recently totally isolated from the rest of Europe) or anything else.

As a person from Southeastern Europe who's well aware of the situation here, referring to Bosnia and espcially Albania as "Western" is quite funny, if I really have to be sincere :) And that "Orthodox world" group seems totally undue today, but that's another thing. Todor→Bozhinov 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Huntingon's map depicts B-H as being in the Orthodox civilization and Albania as being Muslim. Overall the map is different from Huntington's in a number of places; it appears to be based on the list in the article rather than the actual content of the book. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, this sounds somewhat more sensible. But why is the map different? I really think it should exactly illustrate the theory and should just be a recreation of Huntington's map. Todor→Bozhinov 20:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't really answer for whoever made the map. Feel free to remove it if you think the problems are substantial, although at the small size it appears in the article most of the errors are impossible to make out. I'm not capable to fix it; the other image in the article represents about the limit of my graphic skills. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This map differs the one I have seen in Huntington's book. In that map there are "rifts" in the middle of Ukraine and Romania. 84.2.210.186 07:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The structure of Huntington's world map of civilisations is somewhat fluid, and was criticized as being inaccurate from its inception. As such, some difference in regard to contemporary ethnic societies is to be expected.


 * If anyone is still following this thread: The map shows (Mongolian) Bhuddism sloshing over into Russia,  but Bhuddist Tibet and Islamic Sinkiang/ Xinjiang have been prematurely totally wiped out.  How does Huntington show it?  BTW, can anyone explain why Japan isn't a "lone" country, like Israel and Ethiopia, if it is the only one in its civilization?  And if religion is the criterion, why aren't Monophysite Armenia and Ethiopia together in the same group, that would make sense in this system. Sukkoth 09:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it's a complex topic, so let's divide your question in few:
 * What exactly a problem with Bhuddists in Russia? You doubt their existence?
 * Probably both Israel and Japan qualifies for lone civilizations.
 * I'd say that Ethiopia is too heterogeneous to use only religious definition.
 * -- tasc wordsdeeds 10:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering, and quickly. No, I believe there are Bhuddists in that area -- Buryat speakers, for example.  However, if they are marked, why isn't Tibet also marked?  Is this H's version?


 * My comment about Israel/ Japan etc is of course a notice of possible inconsistency in the system.


 * Your answer about Ethiopia would apply to many other cases of course, and my question was intended to suggest the problem of the system:  Criteria seem to be freely selected or ignored to fit the intended conclusions, with potentially absurd results. Maybe out of place here, sorry.


 * Sukkoth 10:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Tibetans probably are not marked 'cause they don't have almost any authonomity/ religious freedom. -- tasc wordsdeeds 11:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I also noticed an inconsistency in the wikimap. In the book the Northern Philippines are labeled Sinic and Western, not just Western as they are on the wikimap. Basser g 01:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the map from the book available online somewhere? --Astrokey 44 11:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes concerning major civilizations
The author of this article lists Huntington's civilizations (Sinic, Western Christendom, Orthodox, etc, etc). But the list is wrong. I don't mean Huntington's list is wrong (well, it is a bit nuts, but that's another matter). I mean that the author of the Wiki article made at least two major mistakes in what should have been an easy task.

First, the author would have us believe that Huntington listed "Buddhist" as one of the major civiliazations. That is flat-out not true. In fact, on page 48 of his book, says, "...Buddhism, although a major religion, has not been the basis of a major civilization."

Secondly, Huntington did NOT include "Western Christendom" as a civilization. It was "Western" in the book - see page 46. Yes, he does delve into the obvious identity-cultural link between Christianity and "the West." But for him, the West is NOT one of the civlizations that defines itself by a major world religion. That is a major underlying point in the book - the West's pluralism and secularism.

Third, Huntington does not list the British Caribbean islands as a distinct civilization.

I think that the first point above is quite serious and needs to be corrected in this article.


 * Huntington lists the Buddhist civilization among the major civilizations, but you are right that he is not completely consistent in this case. I deleted the word "Christendom" because of the reasons that you mentioned. The British Caribbean islands are considered a distinct civilization in Huntington's book, but they do not constitute a major civilization. I hope the text is now clearer. Tankred 21:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions
I deleted the short "Misconceptions" section recently added by 69.249.97.64. The section made two claims. First, the hypothesis that "The clash of civilizations predicts increased numbers of wars" is argued not to be derived from Huntington's theory. Well, the hypothesis is in line with Huntington's own words. In his essay, Huntigton explicitly predicted a change in frequency of conflicts: "conflict between groups in different civilizations will be more frequent, more sustained and more violent than conflicts between groups in the same civilization". Second, 69.249.97.64 argued that Huntington's critics ignore his view that states would remain the key actors in IR. Well, none of the critical studies cited in this article does it. Tankred 00:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Huntington predicted a change in the frequency of different types of conflicts, relative to one another, not a change in the overall level of conflict. (per the quote you give above). Christopher Parham (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I mean, the whole "misconbceptions" section was not very relevant because the cited critical studies of Huntington deal with the relative, not absolute numbers. Tankred 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Issues
I'm wondering if it's appropriate to put the Toronto Terrorism case in as a "Islam & the West" story, considering that Mubin Shaikh, a conservative Muslim who in his words "did it for Islam," worked as an informant for the RCMP and collected most of the evidence used to bring the suspects to trial.

JB

1:30 Nov 6, 2006

Balkan Wars
Should we consider war between Croatia and Serbia Western-Orthodox clash, and wars Croatia and Serbia led against Bosnian Muslims Western-Islam and Orthodox-Islam clashes?

Cultural reflexivity and controversy
While this article is referred to as controversial (and rightly so), it currently lacks any section addressing the actual arguments for and against this theory.

One example of this is the concept of social reflexivity. Given Huntington's background and the seriousness with which this text was taken at upper levels, it would not at all be surprising to consider the possibility that a broad, civilisational perspective WOULD be taken by increasing numbers of people over time. The fact that this could occur promotes the article and book's abilities as persuasive pieces, not analytical fact. A comparison in this regard could be made to the viewpoints of ethical egoists.

On a related note, I think that there are currently too many examples of events that may align with Huntington's theory in that list, there. The criterion for application is simply that violence is, broadly, nationalistic, given Huntington's claims. As such, we don't really need a listing of all or most human conflict linked here.

Confusing wording
Would anyone care to clarify this passage please:


 * He believes that some of the factors contributing to this conflict are that both Christianity (upon which Western civilization is based) and Islam are: Missionary religions, seeking conversion by others Universal, "all-or-nothing" religions, in the sense that it is believed by both sides that only their faith is the correct one. Teleological religions, that is, that their values and beliefs represent the goals of existence and purpose in human existence More recent factors contributing to a Western-Islamic clash, Huntington wrote, are the Islamic Resurgence and demographic explosion in Islam, coupled with the values of Western universalism - that is, the view that all civilizations should adopt Western values - that infuriate islamic fundamentalists.

What is "conversion by others Universal"? And, what is the predicate of the sentence beginning with the word "Teleological", and where does it stop? Maybe "conversion of others" is meant, and some  periods are missing? I don't want to fix it myself cause I'm not sure what is meant.

Thanks

Sukkoth 10:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Error in "Recent issues"
The Darfur conflict cannot be an example here, as that conflict is between Arabic-speaking Black African Muslims, and non-Arabic speaking Black African Muslims (without prejudice as to the cause of the conflict). See any Wiki article about it, for example, Janjaweed. Therefore, This is not a conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. Perhaps the cotributor confused it with the conflict in South-Sudan/ Equatoria.

The conflicts in northern Nigeria might be a better example of an Islamic-"African" conflict, although Islamic-Christian would be more accurate.

Sukkoth 10:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent issues
I have recently reverted the addition of "Ethinic cleansing in Bangladesh" by User:Sujoyiit (aka 130.126.228.190?). The list of "recent issues" should include articles in Wikipedia. It is not a list of external links. If we start adding external links about all ethnic conflicts in the world, this will become the longest article ever. Moreover, websites are often partisan and they contradict each other. To sum up, I believe the edit put an external link to an inappropriate place of an inappropriate article. Tankred 17:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of minorities in Bangladesh
I differ with user:tankred in that the "recent issues" need not "necessarily" include articles within wikipedia ( although this is mostly the case). The external link is provided "only" for the user reference. Websites can be partisan and contradict but that is for the users to decide which one to accept. Removing edits just because someone doubts authenticity of a source is not a wiki policy. Finally, I disagree that the link is inappropiate since is at the core of "Hindu-Islamic clash" as mentioned in the book (although not this particular case). I expect user who wish to omit my addition to "first settle" the issue with me (user:sujoyiit) by email or talk page instead resorting to unilateral deletions.--Sujoyiit 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you mind creating an article (at least a stub) on Wikipedia about that conflict? I am still not convinced that putting two external links inside the list of "recent issues" is a good idea. I am afraid that someone from Bangladesh will put there a third link with an opposing POV. I do not question inclusion of the conflict itself, but the description should follow the style of the list, it should be NPOV and it would be safer for the integrity of this article if you add a link to an article in Wikipedia instead of two other websites. Tankred 19:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice and accomodating my viewpoint. I am new to working in wiki, so I'm unaware of the details. I would work to create an article on the conflict. As far as someone adding an opposing POV, I welcome different POVs. I believe wiki encourages different POVs in its articles as long as it doesnot start an editing war. The onus lies on the readers to judge. Sujoyiit 20:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Recent Issues"
Who decides wich conflict will be linked in, and wich not? I don't see clear references, just popular believes, and some ethnic conflicts listed as civilizational clashes, wich are quite constrained to be listed here as a "recent issue". Clash of civilizations is about the clash of civilizations, where civilizaitions are clashing. Like Ukrainian presidental elections, tha israeli-arab conflict, international terrorism, and such. Wars other than the former Yugoslavia's (Kosovo, Croatia vs Serbia) are tipically one of those constrained ones. You misunderstood Huntington? --Vince hey, yo! :-) 10:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing/Mixed parts

 * "La revanche de Dieu" ~ God's revenge - the revival of the religions, and the renewal of religious wars/conflicts
 * The types of civilizations - 1. universalist (west), 2. agressive (islam, sinic), 3. weak (Latin America, Africa), and 4. indecisive (Hindu, Orthodox, Japanese)
 * The sructure of a civilization: 1. member states, 2. core state(s) - the "leader" of the civ 3. torn countries (this is mentioned) 4. the lone states (also just a line) 5. switching/aparting states (from a civ to another, like Turkey from Islamic to Western)


 * The poles of the World will be those core states and global interests will be replaced by interest spheres. These interest spheres: 1 Western world 2. Russia and its surroundings 3. China and it's interests 4. Islam


 * Islam's internal conflicts are mainly because of the absence of a core state and the fight to be the core (leader) state. in the Islam states, loyalty to the tribe is above the loyalty to the state. Statehood is secondary, since those are just the borders of the former colonies.


 * The revival/upcoming of the local majority's culture (nationalism) like in Slovakia, Serbia, etc. The importance of cultural identity also grows fast (and "high").

The identity crisis of the 1990s, wich lead to the new order of civilizations


 * "Human rights imperialism" - forced weternization (for ex Iraq), in the name of human rights.

Religions are more important in civilizational clashes, than ethnicity or such.

And some more. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Like Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man wich is really not important to mention. No, the reason, why Huntington wrote this book is not intresting. No. Not. Gosh... --Vince hey, yo! :-) 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Created Archive
See Talk:Clash of Civilizations/Archive_1 for the archived discussions from prior to this year. Kyle Cronan 05:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

World population by civilization
I have made a plot of past and projected population by civilization, using Huntington's classification. The data is from the US Census and covers the period 1950-2050. Perhaps this is a bit too much in the way of original research (as I had to decide exactly which countries to put into each civilization), but I wondered if this might be good for the article. One caveat is that as Huntington himself points out, this model is not so useful once you go back to the Cold War era and may not be again in 2050. But it seems to give a pretty good impression of how things are changing presently.

I'd be glad to also post the country lists if people are interested in how this data came about. Here is the image.

Kyle Cronan 05:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be concerned about adding this first because it is original research and second because total population is not really the demographic issue Huntington focuses on. Nonetheless interesting image. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I suppose that's true. Well, I'm glad somebody else got a kick out of it. Kyle Cronan 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I´d agree that this is original research, but there are some researchers pursuing such questions.


 * I take Huntinton to be concerned not so much about absolute numbers of population but about young males. In an interview with a british newspaper, he stated: "I don’t think Islam is any more violent than any other religions, and I suspect if you added it all up, more people have been slaughtered by Christians over the centuries than by Muslims. But the key factor is the demographic factor. Generally speaking, the people who go out and kill other people are males between the ages of 16 and 30" See Michael Steinberger: ‘So, are civilizations at war?’ - Interview with Samuel P. Huntington, The Observer, Sunday October 21, 2001.


 * This seems to point to youth bulge theory, a summary of which (including references) you can find here. This model basically states that historically, large scale violence such as in conquests, colozization, wars, civil wars etc. has been executeed by "surplus young males" - ambitious 2nd, 3rd. and 4th sons who were not able to find acceptable positions in their society of origin. A mismatch between social positions and young male seekers creating "surplus" young males presupposes high birth rates (4 children per woman´s lifetime or above). So the line of research you were suggesting does exist - I´m not sure if Huntington pursued it any further, though. --Thewolf37 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Clash Of Civilizations
Rastinny 11:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rastinny, I have moved your essay to Talk:Clash_of_Civilizations/Rastinny_essay so that it doesn't take up so much space here. Hope you don't mind, but I figured you just weren't aware that you can do that (it took me long enough to figure out!). Kyle Cronan 07:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The clash of civilization map is incorrect
Atleast with regards to India. I dont think it does justice to Sikhs,Jains,Bddhists or even India's 150 million Muslims to pegionhole Indian civilization as a "Hindu civilization". Whats more the South East Asian countries decidedly have cosiderable Hindu influence. I know Huntington labels it as such, but the map makes it look as if Wikipedia is endorsing his hypothesis. I mean c'mon you dont need a grossly incorrect map on this article. This isnt Clash of Civilizations of Dummies or something, is it?  Amey Aryan DaBrood&#169; 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that Huntigton's conceptualization is highly problematic. But this is an encyclopedic entry about his controversial theory. Wikipedia does not endorse any specific theory, it just tries to summarize all of them. That is why the map should follow what Huntigton actually wrote in his book. But there is also a section about the published criticism in the article. Tankred 20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, India is also marked as a "cleft" coutry. It's muslim pop is considered as part of the Muslim civ. Huntington's map is divided on religions, not real borders. Those are just sometimes match with religious borders. So, I partially agree that the map incorrect. OFF:But this is common. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 12:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that map is 100% WP:OR. For example, the Turkic speaking countries of central Asia, Albania and Bosnia are remarkably secular due to their communist past and in some cases multiethnic with significant non-Islamic populations. How can they be classified as part of the "Islamic World" when Turkey is not? Generalizations like that should not be made, at least without sources.--Domitius 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with the map is that it differs from Huntington's own map (in the book) in quite a few details. Arguably it reflects Huntington's views better than his own map but it involves some interpretation that might be controversial. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, just read the article: there are a lot of . --Vince hey, yo! :-) 04:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is also a mistake on the map regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the map it is under Orthodox and in the text it says Muslim. In reality is neither Orthodox nor Muslim nor Western. It's a strange kind of mix. 122.162.158.198 12:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina
As we all know this is a major issue within the Huntington framework.

Even on this wikipedia page the information is carelessly contradictory, as Bosnia and Herzegovina is placed in the Orthodox camp on the map and in the Islamic camp in the text.

I am here to propose a solution.

As we all know Bosnia and Herzegovina is a region particularly relevant to the clash of civilizations concept because the three major groups there, the Serbs (Orthodox), the Bosniaks (Muslim), and the Croats (Catholic) connect their national identity largely with their religions (civilizations). As Huntington observed, this led to a clash of these 3 civilizations and a civil war. The country is now an independent state for the first time in history and we are puzzled as to where to place this country on Huntington's map.

The solution is simple: Bosnia and Herzegovina is divided into 2 distinct entities, The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Serb Republic (Republika Srpska). Each entity takes up roughly 50% of the geographical area. (see Subdivisions_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina on wikipedia) The population of the eastern region, Republika Srpska, is nearly 90% Serb and thus 90%+ Orthodox. The other entity, The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is 70% Bosniak and 28% Croat. That second entity may yet see a struggle between the Islamic and Western civilizations, but one thing is clear...

The western borders of the Orthodox Civilization must be drawn at the Republika Srpska, including this entity into the Orthodox world. This is a notion Huntington himself would certainly agree with, and the solution that makes the most sense. Bosnia and Herzegovina is far too divided along civilizational lines to be represented as a whole single entity on the Huntington map. It is Huntington's view that any such country that embodies clashing civilizations will meet the same fate as Yugoslavia itself in the near future: civil war and ultimately partitioning of territory along civilizational lines.

I propose we make this change to both the text and the map, dividing Bosnia and Herzegovina by its distinct entities.

--24.150.77.3 23:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

S vs Z
I took me quite a while to find this article, being that I was using "Civilisations rather than the American "Civilizations". I'm not a pro at Wikiediting, so could someone put a redirect to this page from the former's spelling? Thanks --AQjosh 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since 13:42, January 13, 2005, there exists Clash of Civilisations and since 17:06, March 24, 2007, Clash of civilisations, so I don't really understand why you had difficulties. --Cyfal (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Influence on "Clash" - Feliks Koneczny?
I just changed in a slightly bold/choleric action the main article on Samuel P. Huntington. Maybe I should have waited for a reactions on my entry in the talk section Talk:Samuel P. Huntington.

BUTWhat I cut out now is an unsourced contribution in brackets, that suggests the following influence on the "Clash of Civilization" : (inspired by Polish scientist Feliks Koneczny) My hope is that the author might be around, and strictly it belongs here. LeaNder (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Koneczny also divided civilisation into seven types and also argued, that civilisations lead the wars.. But Koneczny divided civilisation not according to language and religion, but according to treatment of law, ethics, church, attitude to private and public spheres of life etc. In Koneczny classification, for example, France is byzantine type of civilisation (high role of state, centralisation, no place for ethics in politics) despite being catholic country. Szopen (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Harvard clashes
We learn a lesson from Harvard clashes. See the historical instances in the following sections. --KYPark (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

greece
the map/theory is laughable. It has greece painted with the same color as russia and whatever is "at that side of the world" just because of the religion denomination. i suspect the guy is a fanatical christian of a certain denomination seeing only black or white for regions never visited or even cared to read something more than a few sentences about them. greece, the country that gave the roots of the western civilization and the word that names europe. not only this theory is ridiculous, the whole article should be at least renamed to ".. (book)" or ".. (Huntington 's view)" --Leladax 11:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's more than just religion, it's history and culture too. Ancient Greece certainly had a strong influence on the Western World, just as it has on the Islamic World and the Orthodox World as well, but that doesn't make Greece a Western country. Western Civilization is actually rooted in the Romans... It begins to emerge under the Roman Empire when distinctions arise between the Greek-speaking East and the Latin West. This is solidified with the collapse of the empire into two halves and the eventual Great Schism between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. Western Europe goes on to experience the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Age of Exploration, and the Enlightenment. Eastern Europe on the other hand develops as a mixture of Greek Byzantine and Slavic culture. In my opinion, though, Greece should be considered a "lone" or a "torn" civilization under Huntington's theory as it has more in common culturally with other Mediterranean cultures in Western Europe and the Middle East than it does with the Slavic world, and it aligned with NATO instead of the Soviet Union.

I find nothing laughable. And you are entitled to your own opinions... however laughable.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about that analysis. It is telling (and contrary to your views) that most historians refer to the Greco-Roman foundations of western civilization. The roots of the latter are not to be found in the differentiation of Roman culture (much less the schism between the churches). Moreover, the Renaissance and Enlightenment were heavily influenced (if not outright shaped) by the so called "re-discovery" of ancient Greek culture, and we all know their importance in the creation of the modern western world. 84.254.35.239 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Greco-Roman. That implies the fusion of Greek and Roman culture that occured after the rise of Rome. Also, the same Classical Greek culture that influenced the West also influenced the Muslim World long before the Enlightenment - Remember that the Muslim World played a very important role in preserving Greco-Roman knowledge. Does that mean the Muslim World is part of the West, too? That Greek culture influenced the Western World long after its prime does not make ancient Greece, or modern Greece, part of the Western World. The knowledge that influenced the Enlightment was Greek in origin, but it was analyzed and reinterpreted in a different cultural context, that of Western Europe. The Western World doesn't really begin to emerge until the late stages of the Roman Empire, with the fusion of Greco-Roman, Christian, and indigenous Western European (Celtic and Germanic) influences. The elements as they existed seperately prior to this fusion are not Western in and of themselves.


 * There is nothing "laughable" about the classification. Huntington wrote about MODERN civilizations, not ancient civilizations. Greece is not a civilization in the modern world. Greece now is just a third-rate country that belongs to the Orthodox civilization headed by Russia. 66.65.129.159 (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Third rate"? That seems more like a comment intended to create offense, rather than a good faith contribution to the discussion. Having said that, there is sometimes a seed of truth to be found even in the most inflammatory statement. In our case, there does indeed seem to be a discord between those supporting Greece's Western alignment, and those suggesting that we orientate Eastwards (in our case, to Russia) instead. 84.254.35.239 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While I would not use the term "third rate" which is pointlessly offensive, it is true that Greece is no longer a major power in the world. However, I feel that a more useful rebuttal is that the theory is not about what countries go in what boxes. The point of the theory is that there are civilisations and they clash for a variety of reasons. You can still use the theory even if you decide that Greece is instead classified with the West or if Japan is classified with the Sino civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.184.197 (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

the map
I appreciate the usefulness of File:Clash of Civilizations world map.png, but there remain some issues: --dab (𒁳) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * it more or less accurately reflects the section content, but that content is completely unreferenced in its details.
 * the colours should reflect the groupings. As they are, the eye groups" "Western" with "Sinic" and "Latin American" with "Hindu". Not a good choice.
 * the "torn" countries would need to be indicated in hatching or similar.

The original map in the source is this one and only map is corresponds with it. --Olahus (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Did Huntington say that Eastern Thrace and Anatolia belong to two different civilizations? Prove he did and I'll your map alone.--Mttll (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a trivial argument. You are merely using a technical glitch as an excuse to push your POV.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So you accept it's a technical glitch and you don't think it should be corrected?


 * Mttll, you cannot edit the article in concordance with your personal point of view. (see WP:NPOV) If the original map in the source (see WP:SOURCES) represents Turkey in two cultural areas, you must respect this fact. Turkey is not the only state represented like this. You must understand that your (or my) personal point of view are completely unimportant as long as the information from the sources are not matching with them. In my opinion, I would include even European Turkey (Eastern Thrace) to the islamic cultural area. But does my personal opinion matter? I think it doesn't. --Olahus (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Turkey's case is different. It's a glitch like Tsourkpk says. Do you not agree? Do you think the source thinks Eastern Thrace belongs to a different civilization? Please, being neutral doesn't mean acting like robots or zombies.--Mttll (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is quite clear: It includes Turkey as part of the Islamic Civilization.  The glitch you ar referring to is that Eastern Thrace is shown as not part of the Islamic Civilization.  This is a technical mistake.  What holds for Anatolia holds for all of Turkey.  You are just cynically exploiting a printing error to push your POV.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Just correct that printing error. Apparently that map doesn't recognize lone countries, but that's another topic of discussion.--Mttll (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been fixed in this version of the map, which the only correct one. Hence, this is the version that stays.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * @Mttll: A printig error? Did you read it in the erratum of the book? I doubt it. --Olahus (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

New map
I have updated the map of Huntington's major civilizations to more accurately reflect the one from the book. This look about right? Kyle Cronan 08:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please quit putting your map on the article. It is has too many errors. 1.)Israel is not a part of the islamic world 2.) Haiti is not part of latin america, they don't speak spanish and they are black 3.) if you are going to potrays the islamic regions in africa then u should have included northern nigeria and nearly all of west africa 4.) The phillipines is not part of the sinic world (they are catholic) 5.) there are more muslims in kazakhstan and bosnia than there are orthodox christians, so don't lable them orthodox nations. 6.) kaliningrad is part of russia, not the west


 * I can at least commend u on labling tamil eelam in sri lanka hindu, something I messed up on. User: Ishvara7


 * The image is captioned "Huntington's Civilizations" (at least it was: you also reverted my fix to the markup for the caption). Generally speaking, an article--particularly one that covers someone else's book--should try to avoid offering new interpretations of the material, in keeping with the policy on original research.  The only way we can do this without controversy is to follow Huntington's own map.  If the delineation has been criticized, and that criticism is notable and verifiable, then we can point out cases where the map may give a misleading impression.  I think it would also be fine to qualify by citing text in the book where Huntington seems to contradict his own map.


 * In case you don't have the book on hand, a scanned image of Huntington's map is available here . I took another look, and I believe the only places I have strayed from Huntington's own image are in Tibet, Guinea-Bissau and Guinea.  I will correct these errors, but I hope we can come to an understanding first.  Kyle Cronan 03:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the northern part of the Philippines supposed to be shown as Sinic, with a Western outline? Also, Hong Kong is marked as being Western. --Astrokey 44 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Both those markings are in Huntington's map as well (see the linked copy). Christopher Parham (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the book's map tonight and provide some input on this. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On the whole I think Kyle's map is superior. Ishvara's seems to make numerous deviations from the one in the book based on his own opinions about the proper affiliations for these countries. I would support putting Kyle's map back on the main article. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ishvara, thanks for creating the original image. I would not have been motivated to create a new version if you hadn't gotten the ball rolling.  That said, I'm going to restore my version (with a few errors corrected). Kyle Cronan 05:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ishvara's map is correct. If you have read the book, you would have noticed that all comments made by Ishvara above are correct. Nevertheless the map can be improved, for instance by crossing the boundaries of countries. Many countries do indeed have civilizational cleavages, such as the entire east coast strip of Africa should be Islamic. Sijo Ripa 11:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ishvara's identified errors are supported by the book to various degrees; Haiti is the most clear one. (Israel isn't marked as Muslim in Kyle's map.) With countries like Kazakhstan, however, it is not clear that being majority Muslim puts them in the Muslim civilization; Kazakhstan is pretty clearly identified as being politically dominated by its Russian minority. And while the Phillipines are clearly Catholic it's not clear that this puts them in the Western world. In general, Huntington doesn't speak directly to the affiliation of many countries. The nice thing about adopting the same divisions as Huntington's own map is that they are clear and unambiguous. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's focus on the words at this point. Covering these sorts of cases in the text (as is done currently, for the most part) will allow us to present a more nuanced and accurate reading of Huntington's theory than is possible with the map alone.  I, however, still have half the book left to read, and will return later.  Kyle Cronan 14:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done a slow revert on the map again. If anyone objects (Ishvara, are you still around?), please let's discuss it here. Personally, I just don't see how it can be incorrect to use a map that follows exactly what's in the book. Kyle Cronan 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with the new map is that it has too many errors. We need to follow what Huntington wrote rather than drew. His map of tibet was rather crude, and last time I checked Bosnia's muslims make up the largest group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishvara7 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the border line for Tibet is not quite right, though I think people will understand the intended meaning. I don't know a whole lot about Bosnia, but it would certainly seem to be a difficult case.  Keep in mind that at the time of the book's publication the war there had only just ended.  It is a place that has historically been subjugated by Serbs.  Though it's interesting that the same reasoning did not apply for Huntington in the case of Tibetans in China.  Perhaps the circumstances are a bit different there.  In any case, you're absolutely right that what Huntington wrote is the important thing and it may contradict his own map a bit, but this only goes to show how contentious the debate is bound to be if we open things up to subjective interpretations! Kyle Cronan 07:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

KOREA AND JAPAN ( ALTAIC CULTURAL GROUP). LANGUAGE WISE AND CULTURAL WISE NON-CHINESE SPHERE. MAP IS WRONG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor (talk • contribs) 08:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling Prophecy?
Wooah, that is some statement! I would suggest removing this sentence:"The Clash of Civilizations thesis may also be regarded as an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The ideas of Huntington and Bernard Lewis were already influential among American neoconservative figures such as Vice President Dick Cheney prior to September 11, 2001;[citation needed] Middle East scholar Gilles Kepel (2003) reports that many radical Islamists in the Middle East likewise viewed Huntington's thesis approvingly.". The claim that this theory in itself is the principal cause for conflicts between the different "civilizations" is pretty bold and does need citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.247.238 (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington
World politics is entering a new phase, in which the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of international conflict will be cultural. Civilizations-the highest cultural groupings of people-are differentiated from each other by religion, history, language and tradition. These divisions are deep and increasing in importance. From Yugoslavia to the Middle East to Central Asia, the fault lines of civilizations are the battle lines of the future. In this emerging era of cultural conflict the United States must forge alliances with similar cultures and spread its values wherever possible. With alien civilizations the West must be accommodating if possible, but confrontational if necessary. In the final analysis, however, all civilizations will have to learn to tolerate each other —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.28.27.68 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not just tolerate each other but eventually mix up (unite) and form a single global civilization. The sooner this will happen, the better. Otherwise people will be killing each other for no reason for centuries. 66.65.129.159 (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

i'm all for it but you try telling every other person in the world that they have to abandon their culture and way of living for some yet to be determined global civ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

'The slow suicide of the West' by Jorge Majfud, presented an argument against the views of a certain famous Italian journalist (an Italian best seller writer/journalist who is known to have problems with most of the people around the world). While the journalist's venom was mainly targetted against African Muslims, it does not exclude Muslims of different ethnicity. Her argument was based on the premise that west has a open tolerant value system while Islam is repressive and intolerant in doctrine. Jorge Majfud presented the other side of the view with gallant logic.

I have heard many such arguments from intellectuals who on one hand proclaim to be tolerant, rational and logical but on the other hand stand rigidly on jingoistic opinions. Infact those who tout the supremacy of the western rational and progressive values often forget that this was not the case during its entire history until the very recent times. The history of the west is replete with many instances of regressive values (the crusades, the inquistion, slavery, not to mention colonization atrocities) and irrationality.

I suppose the journalist's intolerance of Islam talk volumes of her open minded values. Muslim Immigrants are growing ever more conscious of the image that they carry with them considering that even before they open their mouth, their last name, their attire and skin colour subject them to a prejudiced straitjacket. In the meanwhile, thank god for some sane voices like that of Jorge Majfud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.170.150 (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Malta: a quick note
Malta is counted as being part of the Muslim world. This is certainly incorrect. They are 98% Catholic and are adamently European. Their ethnicity is a mix of Arab (because of repeated invasions throughout history) and Italian (due to proximity), but the Maltese should be counted as part of Western Europe.

212.22.61.71 (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)A. F.

Oceania
Aside from Australia and New Zealand, which have obvious Western roots, has Huntington ever made any formal statements about the nations of the Pacific Ocean? It seems that this region was largely ignored. These countries are generally grouped in with the Western World, but this seems odd when you consider that Huntington considered the English-speaking Caribbean to be a distinct civilization. The linguistic and cultural roots are largely indigenous - Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian, and Papuan - rather than Western. The only real criteria I can see that would make them Western is the prevalence of Christianity, but even that is often highly sychretized with indigenous rituals such as the ceremonial use of kava. Western influence through colonization and Christianization does not seem to make Sub-Saharan Africa part of the West either, for example... --76.98.148.217 (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Turkey?
Why Turkey is green? It is a lone country in Huntington's map.--Martianmister (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, somebody should correct that. I will remove the map, it's misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.169.123 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have restored Turkey and reverted the map to its earliest version which I think is the most correct version. Because in Huntington's criticism, the Turkish culture is the mixture between Islam and Western, a lone country like Japan or Ethiopia with its owned culture. As you can see, the map was fixed by some Muslims. That is nosense to say that Turkey is the same sort with other Muslim cultures, it's not totally right, at least if according to the original criticism of Huntington. I also think that Turkey is mixed, not very Muslim culture at all. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is supposed to have a unique color in that map. Please fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnr Kllrb (talk • contribs) 05:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"a lone country like Japan or Ethiopia with its owned culture."

Don't you understand that EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has their own separate culture? The lumping in the map is simply ridiculous. Intranetusa (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Shouldnt Turkey and the other Turkic countries be filed under "Turkic Culture"? Or isnt that part of the clash of civilizations? NeoRetro (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

criticism section
In the third paragraph "it has been claimed" is tagged as "weasel words". Reference (#8) is provided and the text as written seems appropriate. Labelling the ideas following in the paragraph a "claim" is correct; neither clear-cut fact or an overt falsehood. I suggest removing the "weasel" tag. JAB
 * I think the point of the weasel tag is more that the claim is set out there without any discussion of who is making it or whether it is widely accepted among any particular group of scholars. Lots of things are claimed; just saying that they are is not very enlightening to the reader. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Absurd!
I majored in International Relations and Western World Studies! What is interesting is that the author sperates Latin America as their own civilization, If I can recall it was Europeans that colonized all of Latin America. The French, English, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch. Even in Canada is way different than the US. Quebec is official in French. Quebec considers themselves part of Latin America. But the world "Latin" by itself is too contraversial as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.137.103 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What differentiates Latin America from the West is the region's substantial Native American and African influences. Modern Bolivia, for example, has an indigenous majority, in addition to an indigenous president and indigenous official languages. As Bolivia's population becomes increasingly politicized, its indigenous roots seem to be getting even more strongly pronounced. Guatemala and Peru also have indigenous majorities, while Paraguay has an indigenous official language. African-derived religions are prevalent in Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba. Most other Latin American countries have mestizo or mulatto majorities, with cuisine, music, vocabulary, and other cultural aspects that are indigenous or African in origin.

In Canada, on the other hand, the Metis are relatively small portion of the Francophone population, while the larger Quebecois are more solidly Western. Quebec's indigenous people are marginalized by the mainstream, having only minor influences that are much under-appreciated. In opinion, however, Argentina and Uruguay should also be counted as "Western", apart from the rest of Latin America due to their overwhelmingly European flavor and their lack of pronounced indigenous or African influence. --74.220.50.16 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Kitsikis an influence on Huntington?
The article contains right now this passage: "Huntington's geopolitical model, especially the structures for North Africa and Eurasia, is largely derived from the "Intermediate Region" geopolitical model first formulated by Dimitri Kitsikis and published in 1978."

There is a reference to Greek and Turkish edit ions of Kitsikis' book but it's quiteunclear to me whether Huntington has indeed been influenced in any significant way by Kitsikis. Did Huntington ever read Kitsikis' books, much less derived his theory from them? This latter claim is somewhat dubious, unless backed up with a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazuz (talk • contribs) 22:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Case of Bosnia
There is a problem with both the map and the division of the civilization(s) especially as it pertains to the case of Bosnia, as part of the former Yugoslavia. Huntington fairly clearly noted that Bosnia was one of those locations where, according to him, civilizations clashed precisely because of its fusion of Western (Catholic), Islamic and Orthodox influences. As such, to simply lump Bosnia into the category of "Orthodox" civilization is missing the entire point of his thesis, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.52.131 (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopia, Haiti and Israel
Huntington writes in Clash of Civilizations that instead of belonging to one of the "major" civilizations, Ethiopia and Haiti are "lone" countries, and that Israel could be considered a unique state with its own civilization.

Therefore, imho, these three countries should appear in a different color in the map. It is true that Ethiopia, Haiti and Israel are not singled out in the original map (the one printed on the book), but we'd rather give priority to the text over the map. Sebasbronzini (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The point seems simple. We want to provide a map showing the civilizations as outlined by Huntington in his book; the book conveniently provides exactly the map we want. Why would we reject Huntington's own work and replace it with our own creation, while attributing the idea to Huntington? Ethiopia and Haiti are mentioned only briefly in the book (along with many other countries whose assignment to a particular civilization is questioned), but the only direct and unambiguous statement about their classification is in the map.
 * If you wish to restore your version, at least change the caption to make clear that your map is not as presented in the book. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Israel is easily western. Majority of the Jewish population of the state has come from Europe and the US. The majority of Jews are in the US. Israel is entirely western politically, socially, economically, ethnically, etc, etc.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.74 (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This author is clearly clueless about Greece
The article's thesis is ridiculous concerning my country. We have absolutely no real ties with Russia at the moment. The OPPOSITE is true. There have been talks with Turkey and Russia after the "Georgia Incident" last year "If you help us with Georgia, we'll help you with Cyprus" is what Russia said to Turkey. Even if the situation is not black and white - a deal with oil by last government comes to mind - there's certainly no real certainty of ties. If you have some ties with someone and some differences, the same may be true with others. This RELIGIOUS-centric view of the world has failed. It's not the 19th century anymore.--194.219.255.153 (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, it's so failed that even in the 19th century when there were some minimal steps for Russia to help Greece gain independence from the Turks because of religious ties, even then it didn't go more than a faint attempt. The actual independence effort was almost completely abandoned by Russia and main help came from England and Germany/Austria. --194.219.255.153 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Greece's membership in an "Orthodox civilization" is more than proven by her both fanatical and nonsensical support of Serbia in both the Bosnian and Croat wars, to the extent that Greek volunteers participated in the massacre of Srebenica, and that Greece is the one country in the world where a film opposing the Serb murderers wasn't allowed to be shown. And to the extent that when Anna Politkovskaya was murder, and other national leader offered their condemnations then-prime minister Karamanlis wished Putin a happy birthday. Greece also has *very* close political and diplomatic ties to Russia, both overt and covert in both the right-wing and the left-wing parties: to the extent that Greece has been declared the "trojan horse of Russia" in the EU. Greeks are ignorant about this level of Russian entaglement in politics, because that's how the political establishment of Greece wants it to remain -- and yet you'll note that you'll never hear a word of condemnation by any political party towards Russia, when you constantly hear words of condemnation towards France/Germany/United States/UK/etc... Aris Katsaris (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

french guyana is not sub-sahara-africa
how can france be described as a cleft between sub-saharan-africa and france, using french guyana as an example. french guyana's state of development might be discussed, but its geographic location is definitely not in africa, but in south america. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.20.227 (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Bhutan???????
IF i am not wrong,Bhutan is a predominantly Buddhist country.Granted that it has pseudo-suzerainty with India - a.k.a Hindu civilization but that foes not stop it from labeling it as a "Hindu civilization"please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.219.225.43 (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Map
Can we change the map in the article to this version? It is much easier to read. 89.188.103.210 (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

não é oeste vs resto o oeste se expandiu na zona de outras estas estão a retomar seu espaço por exemplo a longitude Americana já em outros casos a civilização islamica tenta recuperar o tempo que perdeu com o oeste se expandindo e atrapalhando sua expansão por exemplo no sul da asia onde ja controlavam quase tudo pouco antes do oeste chegar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.9.219 (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Guyana and Suriname
"Guyana and Suriname (cleft between Hindu and Sub-Saharan African)" Is that really an accurate description of what Huntington said in the book? It seems ridiculous to me, but has been in the article for a long time (I found the same phrasing all the way back to 2009). --Khajidha (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Huntington's predictions: analysis and retrospect
this section has had no sources and a tag for practically 2 years now. If there is no source for this original research/synthesis then it doesnt belong here.(Lihaas (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This section has no sources and is purely based on the editor's speculation. I think that this section should be deleted Talibalim (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Clash of Civilizations Thesis
This section lists a number of bullet points that it claims Huntington attributes to the clash of Islam and the west. It says that both Islam and Christianity are missionary religions, universalist (all or nothing) and teleological. I see nothing in the article that states these things but I find it an interesting comment so I was wondering if someone could source this for me?

Thanks, Pmychang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.213.117 (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Clash of Civilizations. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160109202339/http://www.euractiv.com.tr/ab-ve-turkiye/article/bagis-fransanin-tutumunda-degisimin-basladigini-goruyoruz-027174 to http://www.euractiv.com.tr/ab-ve-turkiye/article/bagis-fransanin-tutumunda-degisimin-basladigini-goruyoruz-027174
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030216050648/http://www.unesco.org/dialogue2001/en/khatami.htm to http://www.unesco.org/dialogue2001/en/khatami.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Importance and impact
Considering this is the second most assigned textbook in Ivy League schools after Plato's Republic, I think the article needs to spend more time talking about its impact. It should also be rated higher on its relative importance scales. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/03/what-ivy-league-students-are-reading-that-you-arent/ - 2605:E000:1714:C080:F968:95EF:F0F8:EE22 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clash of Civilizations. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130629170348/http://www.aei.org/issue/29196 to http://www.aei.org/issue/29196
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720165019/http://edvardas.home.mruni.eu/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/huntington.pdf to http://edvardas.home.mruni.eu/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/huntington.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120228191100/http://www.transnational.org/Columns_Power/2009/1.Palestine_Civilisation.html to http://www.transnational.org/Columns_Power/2009/1.Palestine_Civilisation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Picture
The picture used to accompany the article does not appear to be of the book The Clash of Civilizations, as stated, but rather of the edition of Foreign Affairs magazine in which Huntingdon originally proposed his theory. Will I just go ahead and make the appropriate changes or does anyone have any objections? Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)