Talk:Western world/Archive 5

Why is Latin America not given representation in the new addition to the introduction?
I have noticed that there has been a slight change to the introduction of the article (in that it names countries in the new world of European origin). I have a question or complaints about this. One, what defines origin? If it is being a former colony - all the Americas count (no matter whether is mostly African, European or which ever descent(s)). For argument sake, I'll assume the word origin is intended to denote it's colonial heritage. My complaint is that not every region in the western world is represented. Not one Latin American country is mentioned. This is despite Brazil having over 5 times the population of Canada and 6 times the population of Australia. Shouldn't the countries with the most people be mentioned? Latin America and the West Indies have no representation in this article (despite being included as apart of the western world in the Americas or New World). Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Race is not culture. Americans whose origins are in whole or part descended from slaves kidnapped from Africa are undeniably European in cultural origin. If one accepts the explanation of David Hackett-Fisher of what happened to the African cultural heritage in the slave-holding colonies, the brutal "seasoning" utterly obliterated all cultural ties of recent Africans to Africa and replaced any African culture with norms of subjected classes in Britain, and any African-American trait distinct from "white" America is an innovation from the culture imposed upon them or an adaptation from some surrounding culture in America. Much the same is likely true in the other colonies of the New World. Any organization or culture directly from Africa was seen as dangerous to those who had slaves. Maybe this was less true of religion (Voodoo, for example) in some places, but even this varied; the English were far more scared of any trace of sorcery than such people as the French and brutally obliterated it wherever it manifested itself. No matter how African someone may look in the Americas, someone of old African origin in the New World is almost certainly much more European than African in culture... even in Haiti, whose population is overwhelmingly of African origin.

More ambiguity applies to persons of First Peoples origin whose contacts with Western civilization are superficial, who have been able to maintain some of the traditions of a "lost" civilization (Aztec, Maya, Chibcha, or Inca), or maintain traditional ways (Inuit) due to the harshness of the terrain. The extent of fusion between Spanish and First-Peoples cultures varies from country to country. In such places where First Peoples still have cultural significance, assimilation has gone both ways. Pbrower2a (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Western Culture is based in culture, not in race. Neither in the geopolitical map of the Cold War. The religion, language and way of live are main reasons to be occidental. Latin Americans are Christians, mainly Roman Catholics (the religion of the final years of Rome Empire), Latinos speak Spanish, Portuguese or French, all languages ​​derived from Latin. Most countries are presidential democracies, and their culture is derived from Spain, Italy, etc

http://www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/emily_monroy/western.asp

--Edhu9 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is Croatia counted as the west?
It doesn't make sense to include Croatia as apart of the western world for three reasons. One, why would they out of all the Slavic countries be concerned western and no one else? Two, Croatia is not apart of the EU (unlike other eastern European countries like Romania and Bulgaria). The EU representing primarily represents western countries. Three, there is no citation. Therefore, they should be taken out until a citation or a reasonable explanation is provided. Personally, I think bias westerners who want to maintain the wealth image of the west included Croatia because they are the wealthiest country in it's general area.

"Why is Croatia counted as the west?" Why not?! For thousand years of its history, Croatia belonged to western civilization. Croatia (as part of Titoist Yugoslavia), was even not part of Soviet bloc. As Czech, I say that being slavic does not mean to be non-western. Slavic countries as Poland, Slovakia, Czech republic, Slovenia and Croatia are unseparable part of western civilization. Do you think, that fourty years of communist rule could change thousand years of previous history. After all, cold war is more than twenty years over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.255.56 (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In some ways or another, all Slavic countries are culturally related. This is a large and culturally recognizable region in Europe that tends to be synonymously associated with being Communist Soviet satelittes in the second half of the 20th C. Some of the non-Slavic countries of eastern Europe which aren't Slavic. Perhaps the other non-Slavic countries of eastern Europe not on this list could be included (Hungary, Albania, Romania). I'd say no in all cases except for Hungary because of geography and extensive influence from the Soviet Union. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

All Slavic countries are linguistically, not culturally related. For thousand years, western and eastern Slavs underwent totally different historical and cultural development. For approximatly fourty years, they were oppressed by communists. Do you think that fourty years long unhappy period could overshadow previous thousand years long history. After all, Cold War is over.

Slovenia, and not Croatia, is the richest of the former Yugoslav states.

The Serbs and Croatians may speak essentially the same language, but their cultural identities are very different. The Serbs became Orthodox (except for the Bogomil sect that mas-converted to Islam); the Croats became Catholics. The Serbs endured nearly half a millennium of Turkish rule that essentially cut them off from western currents; the Croats had a much shorter time under Turkish rule and came under Austro-Hungarian rule that shoved Croatia into the West. The Croats seemed content within the Dual Monarchy. In 1918 the Croats entered a marriage of political convenience with the Serbs on linguistic grounds in the formation of Yugoslavia with Serbia as its core, but in 1941 Nazi Germany found it easy to separate Croatia from Serbia and establish an outright ally in Croatia. That division was intended to be permanent, but Tito's partisans and the major allies forced a restoration of the national "marriage of convenience". That lasted until the 1990s.

Question: do the Croats have more nostalgia for Vienna -- or Belgrade?

--

re: Soviet influence in central and Balkan Europe

Soviet influence over central and Balkan Europe was entirely the result of military force. Cultural influence behind the Iron Curtain has proved superficial and ephemeral, much as was the case with the Russian puppet states in Finland and "Congress" Poland in the 19th Century that the Russian Empire effectively annexed for far longer than the 40-45 years of Communist rule. It is arguable that culture shapes politics more than politics shape culture. Pbrower2a (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

WAS Medieval Early Modern and Modern Greece western?
Greek Culture is/was Eastern Orthodox. Some people confuse Ancient Greece & Greek culture (which was cradle of early western civilisation) and the Easter Roman Byzntine Orthodox Empire (opposite of the Western /real/ Roman Empire) Moreover The attitude of Greeks were hostile with western christian (catholic protestant west) until their war of independence against the Ottomans. Because many material support and voluntary soldiers came from western powers in the era of greek freedom fight, they changed their attitude positively towards the westerners. Their architecture (from byzantine times) clothes applied technology fine arts literature etc.... were clearly non western, most of their civilisation was inherited by the Middle-Eastern world rather than the west.


 * the original greece not was orthodox..was paganist..anciet greece was the simbolic homeland of the western culture/civilization-et cetera..

Ancient Greece wasn't western because the idea of what was western at that point in time hadn't exist. It was Greek. There wasn't necessarily an idea of what made Greece so related to the rest of Europe at the time. If there had been, Greece wouldn't have been so unique. We speak about Ancient Greece because of it's uniqueness. Not it's similarities to neighboring areas.

Whether or not ancient Greece history and culture being the cradle of western civilization is a bit arbitrary because there are many things that can and how we measure that is very difficult. Greeks changing their attitudes toward the west doesn't make them family members. It doesn't mean they aren't related. They aren't the same though. It'd be like saying if two people get married and both of the families went from hating to loving each other, does that make them blood related? No. Does it make them loving family yes? In other words, Greece has a lot to do with the west, but it's not the west. People will manipulate that too their liking though. Western scholars love to steal credit of Ancient Greece as to being their own. By including Greece into modern day western definition, it further legitimizes that via manipulation.

The question isn't if Greece is the symbolic homeland of the west. The question is what is ancient Greece smybol to modern Greeks. And that is Greece. Not the west. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

baltic west?
baltic-slavic peoples are eastern europeans and not westerns..finland is part western only — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.118.70.227 (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong! All baltic people and all western and south-westrn Slavs are part of Western world because of their history and culture. Fourty years of cold war couldn´t overshadow previous thousand years of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.255.56 (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Guy Sorman?
I removed:


 * Guy Sorman defines unique features of the Western culture as a passion for innovation, a capacity for self-criticism, and gender equality. 

because I couldn't see why he was notable, or why his opinion deserved prominence William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well there might be a few reasons: he has an article, he has written 21 books about capitalism that should probably regarded as a "western" kind of system, so unless there are myriads of definitions of what's "west" then he might get a couple of lines presenting his vague "definition". Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 21:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Martin acero the iron man
I seem to disagree with User:Martin acero the iron man about what should be in this. Anyone else care? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

latin america

 * latin america not is all western..only in parts..(semi-west?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.198.57.53 (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And how are we to determine which parts are and aren't? And excluding areas which are legitimately predominantly culturally indigenous, why should mainstream Spanish and Portuguese speaking Latin America be any more of an except to the west than the US or Canada? Face it. And why shouldn't we exclude Native American, Inuit and Alaskan Native dominated areas if we are to exclude parts of Guatemala, Paraguay and Bolivia? It is because Americans, Canadians and other ''wealthy westerners' don't like the idea of including or fully includly Latin Americans into the identity of the west. It is an economic bias that has nothing to do with culture. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixing defacements
Someone apparently decided to replace every instance of "West" or "Western" with the term "Ponka" a term which seems to refer to a tribe of sioux native americans in Missouri. It made for interesting references such as "the Peace of Ponkaphalia". I went through and replaced every Ponka with West or Western. I believe I fixed it but if you see something else amiss, please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremymclain (talk • contribs) 16:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of map of Huntington's thesis in Europe from the introduction section
I removed the map of the West in Europe according to Huntington (File:Västeuropa-karta.png) for several reasons:

(1) Huntington's views are discussed in further detail in the later 'Other views' section;

(2) In that later section, there is already a world map of Huntington's thesis, as opposed to this one just of Europe;

(3) Detailing Huntington's thesis in this introduction section seems inconsistent with the rest of page's layout, which beings with introducing the concept, then traces its history and outlines modern definitions, and only then looks at other views;

(4) The way Huntington's views are presented here seems to suggest that his view should be taken as fact, rather than as a controversial thesis (i.e. as pointed out in other parts of the article, the following is debatable, yet stated here as fact: “Through the centuries, the Great Schism caused determinant differences in societal structure, in ruling forms, in applied technologies and economic development, in philosophy and ethics, in architecture, in fine-arts and clothing.”) Michael Slana (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Western hemisphere
Why is the intro statement about the western hemisphere relevant? The "Western world" is of course the western part of the Eurasian continent, the "Old world", that was known since the ancient Greeks and earlier. The western hemisphere couldn't be relevant, since quite a few nations that even considered the concept of a "hemisphere" would place that "hemisphere" subdivision line on the "most important spot on the planet" – namely their respective capital. England was the final winner, but that doesn't make any hemisphere relevant at all, since the chance that the hemisphere subdivision line would cut the "Western world" apart was overwhelming. The second para is nonsense and bad reasoning. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 21:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The term western hemisphere was habitually used so out of it's literal definition that it eventually gained acceptance to eventually mean the Americas. For example, when JFK said any attack on a country on the western hemisphere from the Soviet Union would be considered an attack on the US, I doubt he was dividing up England and African countries based on that exact definition. He meant the Americas. Although it should be avoided because of geographical correctness, the terms are still used interchangeably. I agree that we should do our best to avoid using the words western hemisphere if it is in the context of the Americas (because saying America is simply more accurate). Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

map religion in europe
The religion in europe map has many mistakes and is rather misleading. The map shows for example - countries that have a non religious majority Czech republic - Eastern Germany as religious - shows catholic areas in the Netherlands - Amsterdam, Achterhoek, Twente- in Germany -Baden Wurtemberg - and areas in Switzerland as protestant.

However, the lack of sourcing is the main concern. Anyway a map like article text does not get a free pass on WP:V and WP:RS. So please add a reliable (NON WIKI) source or this map will have to be removed in order to comply with WIKIPEDIA quality standards. Grsd (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The area shown in the netherlands is rather accurate. I find the map to be informative. We could leave the map and search for references or change parts of it if you find it more constructive. I am no expert on the mather so maybe it would be better to ask an editor with more knowledge on the matter. Ragards--Arcillaroja (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)--Arcillaroja (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree and the numbers disagree as well. Historically the Netherlands was known as a protestant country, a fact till end 19th century .. However, since then the number of protestants dropped to a mere 15 % and the number of catholics outnumber the protestants significantly ... Areas still shown as protestant in the map including the capital city Amsterdam have more catholics than protestants, other incorrect shaded areas are around Enschede and Emmen in the east. Lisse, the bollenstreek just under Amsterdam, the Hague , the are around Hoorn etc etc.


 * Actual affiliation adherence figures in the Netherlands and this map are rather different.
 * Anyway a map like article text does not get a free pass on WP:V and WP:RS. So please add a reliable (NON WIKI) source or this map before reinstering the map in order to comply with WIKIPEDIA quality standards. Thanks
 * Grsd (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, historically, as you say, The Netherlands as a protestant country was quite different from what it is now. It is a well known fact that south of the Maas the population is predominantly catholic whereas north of the mass they are predominantly protestant. Of Course, this is a just an estimation for illustrative purposes. It would be counterproductive to check every city for statistics in order to present it in the map. The polarization and division between protestants and catholics in dutch society ~was there as recent as 50 years ago. Since then there have been mixing and Dutch society tends to be less inclined to religion than they did before. There are many sources that support the map such as the CIA. I don't have the intention of restoring the map but I think that you are rather aggressive when removing it instead of improving it. Arcillaroja (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A rather peculiar view - describing maintaining WIKIPEDIA quality as aggressive. I am rather interested where you found this "definition" of maintaining quality.
 * Anyway let me me try a more productive approach. Can you back up your remark with at least one reliable source (you refer to many) that as you state the Dutch population north of the maas is actually predominantly protestant.
 * Let me point out that Dutch research from the past few decades is pointing to a predominantly non-religious population north of the maas. And for the northern province Groningen this non-religious majority dates back to 50ies of the previous century.
 * Just some figures as of April 2012 the largest protestant church of the Netherlands (the Protestantse Kerk in Nederland or PKN) has a membership of 10 %, the second largest the Gereformeerde Kerken vrijgemaakt does not even represent 1 % of the Dutch population. With these low membership numbers I have difficulty seeing any protestant predominancy.
 * In Amsterdam - the capital city - there are more catholics than protestants, there are even more muslims than protestants --allthough the largest group - a large majority are the non -religious ones.
 * Similarly to this discussion about the Netherlands, the same is true for Germany, Switzerland and even the UK where areas are showns as protestant that are not. And there are many other issues with this map. However if indeed you are interested in improving the image please provide the data. That is after all how WIKIPEDIA works, you can contribute as long as you can back it up with data.
 * Good luck with finding this data for the Netherlands and the other countries.

Grsd (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Western world (53,165 bytes) vs Eastern world (5,194 bytes)
I recommend to any one who intends to edit this article to be kind and benevolent, and help Wikipedia to expand the Eastern world. 90.166.249.165 (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Britian
Why is there almost no mention of the British Empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.162.159 (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Need of some Changes
The top map about Western cultures needs some chnages (File:Westerncultures map.png)

1. Is Israel part of the West? No Semitic nation was part of the West historically, as far as I know.

2. Do we have to include all present day countries that are members of the European Union like Bulgaria and Romania, which are just north of Greece? The European Union is obviously Western type of community organization and if one country is accepted as a member, therefore it has to be seen as an equal to the other Western members.

Headstonesjk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion your point of view is correct. The Semitic nations have never been considered to be part of "the West" (except in the case of Malta, which is EU member state with official language Maltese that is part of the Semitic languages). I think that all EU member states have to be seen as part of "the West", even if they are Semitic like Malta or Slavic and Orthodox Christian like Romania and Bulgaria.

Sincephase CZ (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody knows the exact boundaries of the western-world and still its a topic of debate. So the map itself unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.144.39 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

While the Levant has been considered part of the "East", it doesn't change the fact that Western civilization owes much to that chunk of land and the people on it. Where do you think Jesus walked? Who he talked to? Where his early disciples were and what they thought? Anyhow, modern Israel is a Western country, at least in its Jewish majority sections; its dominant population is Ashkenazi Jewish, a group so thoroughly Europeanized that it has cultural practices and connections more in common with Europe than with the Palestinians and Arabs around it. Maybe, in time, it might become a "Judeo-Islamic-Eastern" country (well, it's already taken to shwarama and felafel), but most of the people probably had grandparents and great grandparents who grew up on European soil and knew Europeans well. &mdash; Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 09:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have exact statistics on this, but I think Mizrahim (Middle Eastern Jews) are the majority in Israel and have been for some decades. As for Western civilization having its roots in the Middle East, it also has roots in Africa if you back far enough (to the Paleolithic). However, the original definition of the West was the Protestant and Catholic countries of Europe. Jews, Greeks, Syrians and other people of Eastern origin certainly played a major role. For example, the influx of Greek refugees from Constantinople sparked the Italian Renaissance. Since late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, Jews, Greeks, and Syrians were the core of western Europe's merchant class, and more broadly, the urban middle class, which later became the dominant segment of Western society. In many ways, what we call the West is simply the culture of Catholic and Protestant Europe's urban middle-class minorities, since the majority were illiterate farmers who lived in the countryside. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense
This passage is really nonsense: "Generally speaking, the current consensus would locate the West, at the very least, in the cultures and peoples of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a great part of Central and South America like Argentina and Brazil. There is debate among some as to whether Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) [13][14] is in a category of its own. The argument supporting Central and Eastern Europe being a part of the West is that Central and Eastern European countries such as Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania are now part of the European Union and NATO, which mostly comprise Western countries. However, there are distinct cultural differences; the impact of Communism on these cultures in the 20th Century was great". Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia and Slovenia are integral part of Western civilization. Fourty years of communist oppression could not erase previous thousand years long history. Do anybody really think that Czech republic is less western than Brazil or Argentina?!! — Preceding unsignedcomment added by 90.176.255.56 (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We cannot remove this sourced content on the basis of common sense. We could offer counter-arguments if we back them up with sources but otherwise we'd be violating policies against original research. Joja  lozzo  13:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well. As for sources to passage I have criticized, there is said something about agriculture in post-communist Europe. One of these publications is fifteen years old. Quite outdated, isn´t it? After all, do you really think, that agriculture in Poland, Lithuania or Hungary was so much different from agriculture in southern Italy, Spain or Ireland during its history. Not to mention Brazil, if this latin american country is (according to someone) more western than these undoubtedly european countries? There is said, that impact of communism to these countries was great. Maybe. But the impact of previous thousand years of belonging to western civilization was far much greater. I am from Czech republic. Do you really think, that I do not belong to western world whilst Mexicans, Brazilians or Argentinians are considered to be westerners?! As for reliable sources which could serve as counter-arguments, what about Samuel Huntington (The Clash of Civilizations)? Or Milan Kundera (The Stolen West or the Tragedy of Central Europe)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.255.56 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence about the impact of communism since there were no sources for it and it appeared to be conjecture. Please feel free to add support for including central and eastern Europe in the West. Joja  lozzo  00:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved to new sectionCoastside (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Source [13] does not support the discussed claim, it does not speak about term "Western World" whatsoever. Can table header of certain particular agricultural statistics be considered a source for definition of Western world in source [14]? Can someone please check the source [15], that seem to be another agriculture focused topic with little connection to definition of Western World? The entire claim looks like vandalism. 90.177.169.200 (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The references in question are:


 * [13] BUDAPEST - Ghost of second-class status haunts central and eastern Europe
 * [14] Z. Lerman, C. Csaki, and G. Feder, Agriculture in Transition: Land Policies and Evolving Farm Structures in Post-Soviet Countries, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD (2004), see, e.g., Table 1.1, p. 4.
 * [15] J. Swinnen, ed., Political Economy of Agrarian Reform in Central and Eastern Europe, Ashgate, Aldershot (1997).


 * (If anyone makes any edits, those ref numbers could change). The first item is an unreferenced opinion piece on a website and should be deleted. The second item, Table 1.1 of Lerman et al, lists the geographic locations and pre-1990 geopolitical affiliations of various countries in central and eastern Europe. It certainly supports the Original Research in the paragraph. However, the Wikipedia is not a forum for original research, so the second item should go as well. Finally, the third item Swinnen et al does not have a page number and is therefore improperly referenced. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Repeated wikilinks
Jojalozzo, you reverted some recent unexplained edits and asked for comments on the talk page. I didn't do these edits and can't explain all of them. However, I did note that there is a grammatical error that was fixed, which you reverted. The sentence "Although geographically not located in Western Europe," needs the word "Europe" in order to make sense. Also, it was proper to remove the wikilink for Western Europe. WP:OVERLINK says links should appear only once in an article. Since Western Europe was wikilinked earlier (in the first paragraph of the Introduction), it should not be linked again here. Similarly, "Central and Eastern Europe" are linked multiple times in the same paragraph, which was fixed in the edits you reverted. Coastside (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, my revert was way too broad. Thank you for the corrections. Joja  lozzo  15:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Huntington and Latin America/Eastern European Orthodox Christians
Why should Huntington map be given so much relevance? Only ignorant Americans can think that Latin America is not part of the West.

1. By the way America was the name given first to South America, then it was applied to the Northern Part (Just an example of how "Americans steal concepts")Do they now want to steal also the Western concept? Pathetic.

2. Western Civilization was born out of "Greekness" and "Latinity". If anything "Latin" America is more America and more Western than the US themselves, of Anglo-Barbarian origins!

Some people here, beginning by Huntington and others trying to magnify his works, should get a real education before editing this article or anything else, because they make "Americans" look pretty ignorant!. Coon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk • contribs)


 * Generally you are correct (Latin American Catholics and Eastern European Orthodox Christians are also Western more or less). Arnomedtime (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, generally the anon is entirely incorrect William M. Connolley (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally incorrect!. What happens is that some people are more than fed up with racist and ignorant Americans contaminating Wiki all over! Go to school, or wake up! Why should the US be considered the West if Mexico or Argentina are not? Some people are more than fed up that some Americans think that they are the only "everything" in the world an use wiki for their cheap propaganda!. Is it based on race-racist criteria? who says that civilization is based on race-racist criteria?. Besides, if it were so, then the US should be excluded, such a multiracial country as it is! but of course the Western concept is cultural. So, why are we supposed to continue to stand so much ignorance and the-world-is-like-my-uncle-Johnny-told-me-in-the-Bill-hills theories. Coon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Everything is the West and everything is not the West. Much of the premise of this article appears to present the West as something more than a popular convenient/inconvenient fiction, sad, but indicative of the popular mindset. --Xaliqen (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And some people are also fed up with the descendants of Anglo-Saxon barbarians and the like trying to appropriate the civilization that was born in Greece and Rome, the cradle of Greekness and Latinity, the exporters of their civilization to the rest of Europe, with Christianity, with the Roman or Latin language, Roman law and culture, all of them directly incorporated into Latin Europe first and expanded to Latin America later. Maybe we have to remind here that Spanish and Portuguese are Latin languages, that their worlds are Roman Catholic, that their Law systems and fundamental parts of their cultures were laid down by the Romans?. Who is generally wrong? Anglos and Saxons were considered Barbarians in the eyes of the founders of Western civilization. Now their descendants, that became Westernized later, want to appropriate that? Again to school!, and hope it is a good one, because what I can read here is pathetic! Coon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Latin America was once considered part of the Western world. That was when the rulers and big land owners claimed to be of pure European heritage. Now anyone with a drop of indigenous blood and a few years of college is going on about "what your people did to our people." If you call them Western, they get mad at you. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know that may be the case for Central america, for example. Yet Argentina has a higher percentage of white people than the US, for example. what about the US then? Still, race plays no role here, and what a group of people with certain political ideas may think is irrelevant. On top, Latin america is a huge and diverse place, it is not Californian Hispanics or the Northern Mexican border. Americans should stop being so provincial. Coon.


 * Actually, I think you're right. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe there really is such a thing as British civilization. &mdash;  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 09:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

History of the term "Western"
We should have a section on the history of the term. The West was invented in the 16th century. It originally referred to the Catholic and Protestant countries of Europe, as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox countries. Even though Catholic and Protestant countries didn't patch up their differences until the Peace of Westphalia (1648) they had temporary alliances for sea battle against the Turks in the 1500s. That's when the term Western came into general use. ("Civilization" wasn't added until centuries later.) Since then the definitions and boundaries of the Western world have shifted, but have usually been defined in terms of shared Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman heritage, as well as a shared history in the Renaissance. This is discussed extensively in Silvia Federici's book Enduring Western civilization. Even though the author is a flaming leftist, the book is well-researched and spot on. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. An etymology section could benefit the article, not only to tell the history of the term, but also to tell how the concept itself has evolved. English alone has a lot of synonymous nouns to signify the concept (the West, the Occident, the Western world, Western civilization, Western society). First occurrence, anyone? Honestly, I'm not even aware of an occurrence precedent to Spengler's The Decline of the West (Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918). It seems to me like the concept as we have it today originated in academia and lingered there for some time before spreading to politics and popular culture.  EIN   ( talk ) 12:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The C-word?
I just noticed that we have an unregistered used here who ends every post with an offensive four-letter word that begins with c. The word is capitalized and in its own sentence. The user's history indicates a total of 16 posts (on all articles) all of them ending with the word in question. Does this word mean something else in Spanish? I looked, but couldn't find anything. Is it Trourette syndrome? Maybe it's a username that the user doesn't know is offensive in English. The word still occurs three times on this talk page. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Coon" is short for "racoon" and can be a racial epithet in some contexts. It's also a valid surname. I do not think that it's being used offensively here. It appears to be the user's signature. I see that User:Coon was blocked indefinitely in 2006 for vandalism (not because the name was offensive). There are some users with "coon" in their name.  Joja  lozzo  02:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. The only reason I asked is because someone reverted a response to my comment on the grounds that it was personal attack on the user. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Samuel P. Huntington Map
Please, can anyone fix the map of Samuel P. Huntington in the section "other views"? In his work, as we know, Samuel P. Huntington doesn't include Latin America as west but the map in the section "other views", attributed to him, does. I disagree with his view of west but if we want cite his work, let's do it correctly. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.42.195.164 (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The map from Huntington's clash of civilizations article is added to represent correctly Huntington's point of view based on his article.

BaodlywoaterAlbanian (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Western world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110501215623/http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/SCIREV.HTM to http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/SCIREV.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Pictures in the introduction
Hi there.

I think we should keep in the intro only the buildings that show a link between the Greco-Roman architecture and the modern period: that is, the French Assemblée nationale and the American Supreme Court (the legacy is obvious notably with the colums).

The other pictures do not show this heritage, but they are still interesting: maybe we should put the British Parliament somewhere below in the article with a caption that reads something like ''The Western World has been a powerful force for democratisation around the world. Pictured here is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, dubbed the "mother of Parliament"''.

We could use the image of the Christ redeemer with a caption such as Christianity is one of the fundamental components of the Western World.

What do you think? Huiva (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and to make the link with Ancient Rome even clearer, I suggest using a picture of the Pantheon of Rome => this one. Huiva (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

rio de janeiro western?lmao rio de janeiro have much sub westerners in the population of that town only south brazil and sao Paulo have more western influence the rest of brazil have small western contribuition and more native/Hispanic/et cetera-other influences


 * Rio de Janeiro is very obviously the most Portuguese city out of Portugal – and not that I feel personally proud about it, as I identify as mixed-race, assimilated nican tlaca, or Indigenous (though I'm mainly European by ancestry, my Indigenous ancestors are also quite recent, starting in a great-great-grandmother). Indigenous cultural influence in Brazil, to the exception of the Amazon Basin, is really small as most of them were annihilated or assimilated into a strongly anti-Indigenous, white supremacist, fundamentalist Catholic culture. Culture ≠ phenotype ≠ ancestry. As for "Hispanic influence", there was more immigration from Portugal and even Italy to Brazil than there was from Spain, and all of those countries are Western by definition. Not to mention that the "standard culture" of Brazil, as defined in terms of who gets to decide the general direction, organization and norms of society due to hegemonical power, is generally the one shared by the white-majority elite and middle classes, so the entire country is comfortably as within Western culture as our southernmost states (and this is not supposed to be a positive assessment of our society). Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The pantheon should be put in the intro, but second only to the Athenian Parthenon because its historic role for being the main symbol for western civilization. The Athenian Parthenon and the Roman Pantheon or anything associated with Ancient Rome, we already have the forum anyways. The rest of the images can be cleared out from the lead in my opinion. (N0n3up (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC))
 * I agree with the photo of the Pantheon of Rome.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the actual advance from the Rome Pantheon to the Forum Romanum? I would keep the Forum Romanum. --Joobo (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Western world. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/industrialrev.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429013145/http://www.brasembottawa.org/en/culture_academic/fine_arts.html to http://www.brasembottawa.org/en/culture_academic/fine_arts.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417075124/http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.11413/pub_detail.asp to http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.11413/pub_detail.asp

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) 07:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Map
Samuel P. Huntington includes Papua New Guinea in his vision of the Western world... and there are nomadic peoples living in bushes over there... I mean, jeez... @User:Concus Cretus Ernio48 (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the map. We seem to be disagreeing about exactly which map to use. Would someone like to propose a criterion by which we might decide which one to use, rather than everyone just picking their favourite? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is a criterion, and maps that are not based on a published reliable source are original research of an individual editor (such as EEA+Anglosphere), which is undesirable on Wikipedia. I updated the map, so now its shows the Western civilizations as well as the context of the Orthodox and Latin American, according to its source's definition.--Concus Cretus (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would you include the Orthodox world? And that inclusion of Papua New Guinea is still a bad joke.Ernio48 (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Until there is a correct map with nobody disputing it, there shouldn't be any.Ernio48 (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Read Verifiability. It is not up to an editor to decide what is "the west" and what is not. Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not on Wikipedia editor's opinions, and Wikipedia does not revise sources to try to find or fabricate some kind of "truth". The Orthodox civilization is shown because the article body explains how both the Orthodox as well as the Latin American are related to the Western world via Christianity; so it reflects the article.
 * There is no such thing as a "correct map". Wikipedia uses a verifiable map that is based on a reliable source published by a respected scholar on the topic. Please read Five pillars to see how Wikipedia content is written.--Concus Cretus (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Huntington must have been high on pot when he made this map. Just sayin'.Ernio48 (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "12 November" CC map for reference
 * The term Western world's narrative is long an amorphous, just looking at the lede sentences. The Huntington map is prohibitively flawed and specific to be in this article let alone the most prominent image.  See religion in Kazakhstan for another example, the religion is majority muslim (70.2%).  The narrative of the term goes back into Greco-Roman times, thus pre-Islam and pre-Christianity.  It feels there is an agenda to having Huntington's ideas "at the top"; note he was born in 1927 and died 2008.  This article is not about "Western" (not all of "Western world"?), "Orthodox" (Orthodox christianity?), and "Latin American" (what is implied here?) versus the rest of the World.  X1\ (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not up to an editor of Wikipedia to decide whether the content of a reliable source is "flawed" or not. That would be POV. This article is about "western world", and a we have a reliable source by a prominent author that defines a map of the western world. Editors are not supposed to review sources into some kind of "truth". The fact that an editor disagrees with some point in a reliable published source is not a basis for Wikipedia to start removing notable encyclopedic content.--Concus Cretus (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What page is your map on in the Huntington book? I've only found one similar to File:Clash of Civilizations mapn2.png ... X1\ (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus for the image until you removed it. The fact that you have questions about the map is not reason for removal before reaching consensus to remove it. If I have a question about a map in an article, I don't start discussion by removing it. The answer to your question is page 26 and it was added to the file description too. Please don't remove content unless you have an actual basis to do so. Thanks.--Concus Cretus (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

, Has anyone verified that page 26 of the 1997 The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order has the current ConcusCretus map, as I have only found one similar to File:Clash of Civilizations mapn2.png ? X1\ (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No. This map is one big joke and including it in this article is a shame to Wikipedia.Ernio48 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So no wp:Consensus to keep CC map. As far as I have found it appears wp:OR.  Remove (yet again)?  Would you do it, as I don't want a hint of edit warring?  X1\ (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy where you vote for a solution instead of giving actual arguments based on WP rules. The fact that you personally don't believe in a given printed source because you personally don't have an easy access to it at hand, is irrelevant. There is no basis for your claims about original research as the map is according to the given source. Your attitude is contrary to WP:AGF andy your argument is pure POV. Clearly, the fact that you are switching between different unrelated reasons why the map should be removed, displays your POV: at first you say the map's content is "flawed", then you say the file is original research: both are unsubstantiated.--Concus Cretus (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, no one is claiming they don't believe in a source because they lack access to it. X1\ is saying they've looked at the source and the map does not appear. As far as I can tell, this is correct. The book does not have a map like File:Western world Samuel P Huntington.svg. The only map it has is as X1\ has said, like File:Clash of Civilizations mapn2.png. I don't agree with X1\ that this is OR, removing extraneous information from a map may be resonable if it's supported by the text of the source. But the fact remains, X1\'s basic claim is as said, AFAICT correct. The map does not feature in the book. So it's not helpful to suggest they are complaining about a lack of access when they've specifically noted they looked at the source and the map does not feature, something which I think anyone who looked at the source should be aware of. (Unless I missed the map somehow, but I doubt it.) If the map stays, I think the description page needs to be modified to make it clear this is not simply a recreation of the map in the book, but rather a recreation only showing the civilisations the author calls Christian civilisations with a citation to the part of the book where it's mentioned that these 3 are Christian civilisations. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for your response! The author's book it not about Christianity, it is an exploration of the meaning and definition of civilizations and societies over time.  Map 1.3 (on the page 26-27 of the 1996/7 book) is just one of many possible "maps" the author alludes too, as on pages 44-47.  In fact on the top of page 47, the author states "the West" cannot be found on a map.  I have doubts the map creator has read much or any of the author's book which his says it is from, and the author says nothing about the chosen three "civilizations" being exclusively christian (not "extraneous information"), in fact, the author talks of how "the great missionary religions of, Christianity and Islam, encompass societies from a variety of races." (page 42), "Civilizations have no clear-cut boundaries ..." (page 43), "civilizations are cultural not political entities, ..." (page 44).  Of the three civilizations chosen by the editor, the author compares and contrasts their connections and differences in various ways, whether they are "West" or not.  The most likely "West", the author appears to have labeled "Western" in map 1.3.  This article is about "Western world", not the author's book, not an editor choice of altering what an author says and then attributing it to that author.  This is may explain why I thought of wp:OR and maybe not-NPOV (wp:AGENDA), or more, but I am new to this.  Am I missing something?  I have been doing wp:BRD here, or would an OR noticeboard be the next step, or somewhere else?  Where do I go to resolve this/these issue(s)?  The only one defending inclusion of the map the editor created is that editor.  There is no consensus to keep that editor's creation, and certainly the editor's map should not be attributed to the author and his book, which includes in the Commons.  X1\ (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Selecting a part of a source is not OR. The same way using one paragraph of a news article for sourcing a statement on Wikipedia is not OR. I made edits to the description as suggested by Nil Einne to clarify that the highlighted area is selected out of several and also I deleted "Orthodox" and "Latin American" to make the map more focused with only "Western" (clear browser image cache if the old one appears). The quotes you cite can be added to the article of course, however, they don't change the fact that a simple map of the West has been published by Huntington, a recognized scholar. As for "consensus", I don't see any consensus that states that articles on topics like this one should not include a map. This map is precisely sourced. Comparable articles typically use a map as well.. East Asian cultural sphere, Central Europe etc. Issuing a ban on including a map is what a new consensus would be necessary for.--Concus Cretus (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is CC's new map (below). Very different map, with very similar problems. CC's new map is also not in Huntington's book. The problem is not and never has been whether the author's works can be used as a reference in this article. This is not one of the author's maps, it is CC's. CC, please provide the page and sentence in the author's book that details all of and only the countries you have included in your map, as has been previously requested. X1\ (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

"23 December" CC map
 * Your arguments are running in circles. This map is based on the Huntington's map (not a list), extracting the Western civilization, to highlight it for this article. It extracts information for this specific article. If you believe there is a problem with the map, then you can describe it.--Concus Cretus (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No it is not. Read the book, and see if he says that, then bring that evidence here.  If what I have bolded above is not enough evidence for you against inclusion, I will paste more quotes from the author's book.
 * Do you have input? X1\ (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again the book has a map on page 26 (scan). No editor is obliged to bring a book to someone in order to add content to WP. The map in the article is expressing the author's map, not the author's quotes. The same with File:Clash of Civilizations mapn2.png in Western World. Trying to discredit the author's map with his own quotes is original research. You have never stated where you believe the map derived from Huntington's map is wrong since the beginning of the discussion. The map is derived from it precisely, extracting the stated content about the West. Express your issues precisely with basis in WP policy or stop repeating yourself.--Concus Cretus (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Huntington's map, in context, is on page 26-27, not yours.  X1\ (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No what? Can you express yourself in full sentences and finally state your actual issue?--Concus Cretus (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop bothering me, and backup your side with evidence of what you say. Reread what the other editors have said and asked of you in this section.  If you do not satisfactorily meet what is asked, the group will not give you consensus to include.  Now get to work, and stop with the psychobabble b.s., or end your drive for inclusion of one of your maps.  X1\ (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A consensus for including what Huntington defined as the "Western civilization" has been in this article for ages, as that definition is included in Modern definitions section in form of a comprehensive map. Lead section merely serves to summarize major points from the article body for the readers to get an overview of the article. Since you refuse to explain your repeated removals of that content, it will be treated as vandalism.--Concus Cretus (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not an article about Huntington's theory, and using a lead map that only uses Huntington's very limited definition of the West, which excludes Greece (traditionally considered the foundation of Western philosophy) is a severe violation of NPOV. Plumber (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The map that matches Huntington's book (page 26-27) is Clash of Civilizations mapn2.png:
 * Clash of Civilizations mapn2.png
 * not the various versions (particularly "23 December" and "12 November" of Western world Samuel P Huntington.svg:
 * "23 December" map = Western world Samuel P Huntington.svg
 * which distort Huntington's example at French Guiana (see "African" missing) and the Philippines ("Islamic" missing from Mindanao and "Sinic" missing from Luzon, generally). There has been various attempts from various editor to point-out the error of altering an accurate representation of Huntington map (1.3)


 * This has been no consensus to readd any version (such as "23 December" and "12 November" versions) of Western world Samuel P Huntington.svg. X1\ (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is about "Western world", so other "civilizations" are left out intentionally.--Concus Cretus (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: the "File:Western world Samuel P Huntington.svg" has been ; French Guiana (with "gradient"). X1\ (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that the map has removed the Orthodox and Latin American civilisations and only shows the civilisation that the author themselves described as Western and makes this clear on the map description, my concerns are mostly addressed. I have no comment on whether or not to include the map in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"Gradient" not explained (no "gradients" in book), and the Philippines is even worse (only part is outlined, and it appears just the beach shore is "Western"). X1\ (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * None of what you say are new arguments. Your complaints are about intentional graphical choices that are free to be done by an editor to extract information from a source. A map or image doesn't have to follow same color/style/graphic as the source to express its content. The image that you try to insert also has differences in style from the source. Gradient is more obvious than dividing a country into 2 halves (which makes it look like two territories at a glance); secondly Philippines are marked as per source, I can't help you if you can't see the source. Besides, the map that you are trying to insert is missing Hong Kong and several smaller islands that are marked as Western in the source. As I said, since you bring no arguments, your removals are treated as vandalism.--Concus Cretus (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Contrsx concretus (or whatever his name is ), and lead maps.
For the record, I meant “ Cold War definition” and not “ Cold Wa rin my edit summary. Thank you.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 04:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
User:Jeuryabuese, the sources clearly states Judaism: Do you have any valid reason to state before this is being taken to an admin? Infantom (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Hebraism, like Hellenism, has been an all-important factor in the development of Western Civilization;"
 * "the civilization of western Europe and of America— have been shaped chiefly by Judaeo–Graeco–Christianity, Catholic and Protestant."
 * "Western civilization is also sometimes described as "Christian" or "Judaeo- Christian" civilization".
 * "Judaism has played a significant role in the development of Western culture because of its unique relationship with Christianity, the dominant religious force in the West"


 * First of all, I am a newbie here and you show a little bit of aggression (See:before this is being taken to an admin?). Second, to repeat the sources speak of Judaism, as only indirectly involved (because it is a precursor of Christianity) not directly like the Greco-Roman world in Europe. Plus, the Judeo-Christian concept is a new one (20th-century American concept). I could suggest that you create a new section Hebraism (like the one that exists right now Hellenism) BUT not including it into the lede of the article.Jeuryabuese (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is nice but contradicts the sources, i see no reason to argue about interpretations when there are such clear sources. Infantom (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional source: "Judaism has influenced western civilization in a multitude of ways."
 * This seems like a specific enough a question that it would be a very good candidate for an WP:RFC, so long as it is concise and neutrally worded.  G M G  talk   23:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:GreenMeansGo, care to comment on the sources themselves? It seems that Jeuryabuese making up baseless excuses also completely irrelevant to what the sources state. So what if "Judeo-Christian" is a "new" term? What does it have to with legitimacy of the claim? It's a common term used by scholars. Nothing but excuses. Plus, the same sources that mention Christianity, mention Judaism as well, but for some reason Christianity is ok. Infantom (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, one way or the other, per guidance at MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarize the body, and it doesn't look like it is covered really at all in the body that I'm seeing.  G M G  talk   13:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:GreenMeansGo, that's ok, i'll add the relevant information (similar to this). I would like to hear your opinion about the sources, since that's the "controversial" issue here. ThanksInfantom (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm... it's a little hard to judge them thoroughly since they don't appear to be available online (and I haven't had access to a university library in ten odd years). So it's hard to tell if the passages quoted are from a single isolated statement, or a summary from a work which treats the topic in greater detail throughout, which would mean more as far as determining the WP:DUEWEIGHT.  G M G  talk   13:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The last two are accessible ], . 2) shouldn't we remove the entire sentence then? as it relies on the same sources as well. Infantom (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Another source . Infantom (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not absolutely required that sources be available online, or even in English, although it does make it difficult to discuss them for those who don't have easy access. Tertiary sources like Britannica are often the most useful in determining relative weight, while sources like the Patterson book are often the most useful in writing the meat of the content. I would say overall the point is moot until we have a section in the article to summarize in the lead. Without it, we can't really judge whether we're summarizing it well or not.  G M G  talk   14:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:GreenMeansGo, Ok, thanks. I'll add the relevant information when the protection expires, there's a great information in the related 'history of western world' articles. BTW the other sections, 'Roman Empire', 'Hellenic', and 'Christian schism' are not sourced at all. Generally there are problems with the entire article. Infantom (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold up. Why does it mean that we should remove the entire sentence if the sources are from a single source (which they are not)? Also, it is patently not true that the sections "Hellenism", "Roman empire", "Christian schism" are "not sourced at all", though I agree that there is some original research at work here, particularly adding some outdated Enlightenment scholarship (most of which I have removed, the rest seemed to be summaries of stuff from other articles, which can be easily fixed by getting the sources of those articles and giving them to the relevant material) Also, why are the sources the "main issue" here? They are reliable and say what every history book and scholar say.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 22:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the comment i replied to. Shouldn't it be relevant to the rest as well? "Christian schism" has no sources at all while the rest have only one source each. (for the record i don't think we should remove anything). As for the sources, i totally agree. "Judaism" was removed by an editor who ruled them out, that's why i initiated this discussion. Glad to see there's a sufficient agreement here. I'll add a relevant section to the body of the article and that should resolve the dispute. Cheers. Infantom (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added a section about Judaism with additional sources. I also modified the lead per MOS:LEAD. Infantom (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

POV-pushing in the lede
I have removed the following text on the grounds that it is not backed by the sources used. Ditto with this pic, it is totally undue, especially its placement at the top of the article. Khirurg (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is backed by an entire section and numerous sources in the body of the article, plus the introduction. All the sources explicitly state "Judaism". Where exactly is the POV? Why is the source of prof. Art Marmorstein from Northern State University is undue? seems like excuses to avoid mentioning non European influence. Edited again per MOS:LEAD Infantom (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's better. I can work with that. Khirurg (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but your last edit isn't good enough, definitely not fully aligned with the sources. First you removed new sources i have added with no reason, and that's not the first time. Second, there are many sources which explicitly state major Judaism/Jewish/Israelite impact. What you did was downplaying other influences and attributing them more minor role. Western world isn't founded solely on Greek and Roman cultures, no source in the article support such thing. As long as Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome are mentioned instead of roman culture and Hellenism so should Ancient Israel instead of Judaism. Infantom (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing is "Impact" and other thing is what means " Western world", if we follow the POV of some users here, then we can add also Iran and India in the lead section, why not?.  romans and greeks are enough for the lead. you guys only focus in the  hebrew version of the bible. that seems to me very POV  patriotic and Im not beeing racist as someone have called me here.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep avoiding the sources and pushing your own personal opinion. Where did you see a focus only on the "Hebrew bible"? read the article for a change instead of reverting all the time. There's nothing to do with "patriotism", there are 10 sources that support the current version and an entire section. And yes, Near East civilizations should also be mentioned (i'm the one who added them in the first place) if there are sufficient sources. This is probably goes to dispute resolution. Infantom (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "Impact" and "Influence" are one thing, but "founding" is something completely different. None of these sources back the "founding" claim. This is intellectual dishonesty and needs to stop. Khirurg (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "West" in "Western" comes from Western Christianity, and one of the sources speaks of Jesus as the foundation of Western civilization. Another speaks of Western civilization as chiefly built from Catholic-Protestant Christianity. The Romans and Greeks did not think of themselves as "the West", and were separate from the Nords and Scandinavians, who only became part of the West, like Greece and Rome, through Christianity.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 01:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Nords, only after the Germanic peoples are mentioned and the Near Eastern peoples expanded in the body can the Ancient Near Eastern peoples be mentioned in the lead.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 02:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Jesus is not the "foundation of Western Civilization". I'm starting to get the impression that it is futile discussing with someone with your views, not to mention your fellow edit-warrior, who has a somewhat different motivation, although same difference in the end. Khirurg (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't be autistic, and don't play the victim. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 09:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Jesus is not the foundation according to autistic slags like you. Even anti-Christian scholars say otherwise. Your bullying behavior almost got me to forget that you slimy POV-warrior.09:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleDipper (talk • contribs)

Analysis of sources
Several strong claims are currently being pushed in the article by a couple of editors (Infantom, LittleDipper), for example that "The West was and is founded upon Christianity, ... through which it is founded upon... Ancient Israel/Judaism", or that "Ancient Israelite Judaism is the foundation of Western morality." and several others to that effect. These are very strong claims. In addition the two editors are edit-warring to have this picture placedg it at the very top of the article for maximum visibility. Below I analyze the whether the claim "| "The West was and is founded upon Christianity, ... through which it is founded upon... Ancient Israel/Judaism" is backed by the sources.

About half the sources are low quality or do not meet WP:RS. None of them explicitly back the strong claim that "Western civilization is founded upon Judaism". Based on this, I think it's fine to say in the lede that Judaism had a significant effect/contribution/influence/shaped western civ, but not that Western civilization is "founded" upon it on par with ancient Greece and Rome. "Ancient Israel" is an anachronism and not used by any sources, and should not be used here either. I also feel the picture is WP:UNDUE, especially at the top of the article. Khirurg (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pleas explain how half of the sources do not meet WP:RS. Also I am not the one saying Jesus is the foundation of Western civilization, it is just what the source says.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 09:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also please stop pretending that we are the ones who are close-minded and biased here when we are just backing what scholars in the field say. And please tell us the methodology you used to analyze these sources. And do you know what "anachronism" even means? We have an article called "History of ancient Israel and Judah. Please stop with your non-scholarly bullshit.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 09:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * this guys are only POV Patriotic, ok Let's talk :According to the "Hebrew Bible", ( and then they say that this is not the hebrew bible!) the Twelve Tribes of Israel or Tribes of Israel, were said to have descended from the 12 sons of the patriarch Jacob (who was later named Israel) by two wives, Leah and Rachel, and two concubines, Zilpah and Bilhah.  this is not founding, Here they are only trying to make Fake propaganda.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you citing the Hebrew Bible? Its contents are irrelevant here. The rest of your edit is so autistic that I don't even have the energy to respond to it.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 10:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Khirurg, You keep saying "tertiary" sourc eas if it is a desth sentence to us using the sourc3, whic is not what WP:NOR; if anything, it says that tertiary sources are helpful in evaluatintg due weight- andthe rertiart soirce clealrly show that Ancient Israel should be given as much emphasis as Ancient Greence, and Ancient Rome.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 10:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are playing with semantics and selectivity interpret the sources (i.e "indirectly" instead of "all important factor"). All the sources that mention Hellenism and Rome, mention Judaism in same time, but for some reason you question only the Jewish component. No source in article says the West is founded upon Rome or Ancient Greece, but it doesn't seem to bother you. Your edit version did not mention significant influence as you just suggested. I would suggest to replace "founded upon" with "influenced by" (for all factors) and end your semantics game. Infantom (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Founded" is okay, fine even. It is a pretty normal term to say.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 12:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, but i'm trying to reach a compromise. The thing is that the "analyzed" sources are used for the mentioning of Ancient Greece and Rome as well, and they don't mention "founding". The hypocrisy here is stunning. Infantom (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources that Greece and Rome are the birthplace/foundations of Western Civilization? Easiest thing in the world . I hadn't bothered presenting them because I thought that was common knowledge. But I guess I was wrong. Oh well. Khirurg (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You will also note that a), none of the sources are self-published (do you know what that means?) junk or high school textbook, while I added them much more elegantly than the crude clunky way you have, which screams "POV-PUSHING". Khirurg (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to dive into this discussion with the suggestion that the section "Influences of Judaism" be removed entirely. For one thing, it is nestled under the heading "Historical divisions" which is entirely a geographical section and has little to nothing to do with the cultural influences of the "Western world". Secondly, there is already a reference to the Biblical Christian culture's influence on Western culture, and since the entire argument of the "Influences of Judaism" section appears to be that Judaism, as the foundation of Christianity, formed a large part of the basis of the Western world, that argument is already encapsulated in the proper place, with Wikilinks to further detailed articles on the topic. The point of this section in this article appears to be to push a particular point of view rather than to impart any real information. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with user WikiDan61.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Delphic oracle
How is the oracle of Delphi the most representative thing about Western culture that it must be the image of the first paragraph of the body? 112.211.192.58 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * True, I inserted that image exactly yesterday to give some weight to pre-Christian beliefs. Not a big deal in itself. 81.129.29.103 (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll replace it with more representative stuff. I'll also put some more notable pre-Christian beliefs in the Greek section where such stuff belongs, thank you very much112.211.192.58 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Confusing edits
Hello, why confusing? The colombian exchange is important. Then the caption for that image is better if elaborated. Then the change to the very first paragraph was not me but I agree with it. 2A00:23C4:7155:6D00:8846:F5D:F916:DC03 (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You know the reasons. Your edits are America-centric, add a lot of original research, add a lot of unnecessary details, and are just questionable overall. It is pretty obvious that virtually all of those edits are designed to insert your POV and unsourced thesis (which sometimes even outright contradict what the sources actually say). Prime example: removing "pagan" to not make it clear that Athena only exists for pagans. 112.211.192.58 (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I must reject the personal POV accusation: I've been improving the article throughout the whole last week. Of course my last edits were questionably unnecessary detailed though. Good luck 2A00:23C4:7155:6D00:C520:72DD:DD4D:A297 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Improvements" include such edits like [|this], [|this], and [|this].124.107.125.177 (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)