Talk:Western world/Archive 6

What about the other peoples of Europe?
It wasn't just the Greeks and Romans that started Western culture. It almost certainly has plenty of barbarian influence. Celts and Jews and Vikings and Moors and Gypsies and other groups, too, came into play, and had their own ideas and practices that contributed to the "Western" culture. Why rely on Greeks and Romans, because some dead historian says so? Oh, maybe they were (along with us Jews) the first to write stuff down, but that doesn't let the "barbarians" (or even the Egyptians) off the hook. And let's not forget the Punic Empire and its Canaanite forbears, shall we? &mdash; Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 09:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

'HUNGTIONTON''' Hungtinton didn´t consider neither Turkey nor Mexico as Western nations. I think that Mexico, in spite of its large Native population, can be considered a Western nation (Spanish language, Catholicism) but Turkey, no way (it is part of the Islamic Civilization obviously)--88.8.210.171 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a fairly obvious tug-of-war going on in the article between seeing the West as a community of culture(s)/civilization and on the other hand definitions that stress political and economic conditions. To the latter, "the Western world" becomes more or less the same as "the Free World", defined by belonging to NATO and/or the EU. Supposedly most of Eastern Europe was outside of the western world during most of the 20th century and is only starting to come back in after 2000: a western nation can't really be an autocratic state, still less a communist state. Duh, if the Western world is defined as a cultural community instead (and one that's developed in different ways over time), then this kind of idea that for centuries the West ended somewhere along the river Elbe and the upper Danube becomes a joke. There's no question whether Copernicus, Marie Sklodowska Curie or Bartòk were born and raised within the West. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

...Make Western World available in different languages.
That, really, is all i gotta say. BAI

--24.61.116.26 (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In French WP article
What do you think about the intro in French WP article?

Translation with Google translate:

<-BEGIN-

The West, or Western world, is a geopolitical concept that is generally based on the idea of ​​a common civilization, heir of the Greco-Roman civilization, and an opposition to the rest of the world, or to one or several zones of influence such as Orient, the Arab world, the Greater China or the Russian sphere of influence.

The political concept of the West appears in the year 285 with the division of the Roman Empire, which gradually creates the Western Roman Empire around Rome that uses the Latin alphabet and the Eastern Roman Empire around Constantinople using the Greek alphabet. The "Barbarian Invasions" causes the fall of the Western Roman Empire but allow the extension of the influence of the Roman Catholic Church in Northern Europe and Central Europe, while the Roman Empire Eastern spreading the Orthodox form of Christianity in Eastern Europe. It is in this context that Charlemagne took the title of Emperor of the West in 800. The schism of 1054 marks the final break between the Catholic West and the Orthodox East, which makes possible the diversion of the Fourth Crusade by the Republic of Venice. This episode ends with the sack of Constantinople by Western crusaders, event which weakened for good the Eastern Empire but favors the onset of the Renaissance in the West. In the fifteenth century, the West and East are experiencing two major changes : the Protestant Reformation that alters the structure of Western Christianity and the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks. Faced with this "Islamic lock", Western states seek a new Road to the Indies : this period is called "Age of Discovery" leading to the conquest of the "New World". Comes a period of great change with the establishment of colonial empires, the "Age of Enlightenment" and the Industrial Revolution. During the second half of the twentieth century the idea of ​​the West knows a new dimension with the Cold War and the creation of the NATO.

In the early twenty-first century, it is generally accepted that the "West" in the strict sense includes Western Europe (European Union and EFTA), Canada, United States, Australia and New Zealand. The citizens of these countries are commonly referred to Westerners. According to some other points of view, the West sometimes includes Latin America. -END->

--Monsieur Fou (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the last sentence, my French isn't very good, so I'm not sure if the extra "some" was a translation issue. But it should be more accurately noted that while some (or many depending on the country or region you're talking about) consider Latin America apart of the west, then it is the west to those individuals. It couldn't "sometimes be the west" to people to people with those point of views. To say they sometimes consider it the way would insist those individuals are in an arbitrary state (which many are, but not for those already with that point of view). The other problem is when people say Latin America (or the West Indies for that matter too) isn't apart of the west, they never explain what they actually are. Maybe it is just me, but I've never heard someone say "the Latin American world" in the same context as "the Western World". People will give you all sorts of non-scholarly and often irrelevant reasons for why they do not consider it apart of the west. Some unfortunately will dumb things down to the point of equating western with developed or industrialized or developed or industrialized + a western European language. But even that wouldn't be the problem here, because they are not giving explaining what Latin America is apart of, even though they are speaking of Latin America.

A simple way of describing the populace's view (especially for those who are at least fairly acquainted with the topic) is: Latin America has all of the cultural elements to be considered apart of the west, but because they aren't as wealthy as the west or it's fellow westerners, they get overshadowed and their role in or out of the west goes ignored and left to be debated. TomNyj0127 (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

western world is a defunct term
Basically the article is correctly saying that the term western world is obsolete. Only it does so in a very long roundabout way. The western world can mean many different things to many people, and the term can be applied to any country that shares some attributes that are considered western. This should be stated in the introduction. In fact, the whole article could be shortened down to a paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkast (talk • contribs) 04:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Turkey: your suggestions needed
I'm trying to find an appropriate place, in the article, in which I could add references to the notion of Turkey being part of the Western World, but I'm not sure where it would be most fitting. I'd highly appreciate your suggestions. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
I am about to revert this again. The etymology of the cardinal direction "West" has nothing to do with the concept of the Western world-- the term West is used in other languages even though it has a different root, so this is effectively cruft. Furthermore elsewhere on wiki we know better than to use controversial labels like "ethnic Europeans" which presumes that Europeans from Bashkortostan to Grenada are some unified and single group-- whether we agree with this view or not, it is entirely subjective and not verifiable. IP, it is obvious as the sun in the sky that you are not a new editor. Please sign into your account. --Calthinus (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Never claimed to be a new editor- I'm one of those guys who just edits under whatever IP address lands on top of my location. "West" being loaned by other languages seems to make it and its etymology all the more important. As for "ethnic Europeans", your alternative seems repetitive and tacky. Please demonstrate how "ethnic Europeans" presumes that people are of a unified single group any more than your alternative does. Also, why did you remove the etymology for West but leave behind the etymology for "Occident"? And why can it be in the body but not in the lead?112.211.219.230 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this all boil down to the 15-20th centuries European colonialism? I'm the guy been editing through the whole last weak (little edits after all but maybe confusing at times). 2A00:23C4:7155:6D00:C544:C4A7:FA79:F52C (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because this not an article on American or Australian history, it is an article on Western history. Plus it and its significance are both already mentioned in the very next sentence112.211.219.230 (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But this way it looks more like an article on Europe, which is not the West.. That's just not the definition of Western world. Anyway no surprise. 2A00:23C4:7155:6D00:108B:37D4:1BB2:8738 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Guys, "the West" is an entirely subjective term that is defined differently in different places. Supporting one definition is not verifiable and therefore not in line with Wiki policy. We can only report on what reliable sources have said about the concept. Furthermore "ethnic European" is yet another subjective concept and it is therefore not acceptable to use it in Wikipedia's voice, which relies on factual, verifiable foundations. Your finding it "tacky" technically is not an argument to use in a content dispute as once again it is entirely based on your personal opinion -- there are many possible rewordings "West" is not "loaned" in other languages, it is calqued. But does the etymology of "West" coming from Proto-Germanic, whose speakers had zero idea of the concept as all they knew was their little bog village and the ones surrounding it, is totally irrelevant to the concept discussed on this page, and as such it is off-topic and should be removed.--Calthinus (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you say your IP is where your location is, because if that was true, you would have made many edits at 4:47 AM -- a rather surprising time, statistically one of the least likely hours for someone to be awake. --Calthinus (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Time zones. How is the west subjective? The West is called the west because it was originally only in the west. How is it relevant if Proto-Germans don't know if something is named after a cardinal direction? There is a good reason it is named for that cardinal direction. And "ethnic European" being subjective is not true-some places can be doubted as parts of Europe but that doesn't make "ethnic European all that sujective112.211.219.230 (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, I looked it up in your IP's time zone, which would make it seem as if you were in the Philippines []. Pretty bizarre wouldn't you say. Especially since you made [this edit at 21:47 EST] which is indeed [4:47 in the Philippines]. Very bizarre-- unless your story isn't true :).--Calthinus (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And nope, your personal views on what "ethnic European" means are irrelevant ( as views on "ethnic Andean", "ethnic Central Asian", "ethnic whatever macroethnicity" are), they have to be verifiable, which they are not.--Calthinus (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to different conceptions of directions (if there is such a thing, please provide proof) then the West would not even be a thing in those cultures, and thus would not make "the west" subjective.112.211.219.230 (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are conflating. A cardinal direction is not inherently a geopolitical concept. They are two entirely different entities with the same name. --Calthinus (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The West is, of course, named for the cardinal direction.124.107.125.177 (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, duh. Now is the etymology of the cardinal direction relevant to the concept of a group of countries variously defined by economy, political culture, history, religion or alignment? No. Readers do not care, it does not help them understand anything about the concept of "the West" and it is essentially clutter.--Calthinus (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's say it could be both. Then, has Western culture been influenced by the 'colonialism'? There's two sources about Western culture, and they both mention the modern era's colonial period, especially the first half at least, before the scientific revolution. But does anyone need them, at all, to agree with me about colonialism having played a major part during the modern era...?Oh no wait: didn't the West name it 'modern era' by the start of colonialism? And also, isn't Western world a combination based on America and Europe, with America being west of Europe, in the first place?


 * Colonialism has been very influential because that's what made the late medieval's Renaissance period so relevant: the Christianization of Southern Spain and Portugal had just been completed after the centuries-long Crusaders, the Papal Schism (ended in 1410s) due to corruption hadn't been a funny thing (see the successive peak of the Protestant movement) but being that the Iberian kingdoms had just become European Catholic, the American colonies functioned as high-pressure steam for European Christianity (indeed the vital "Catholic Renaissance-Baroque" and its challenging "Protestant Reformation" both emerged in the early colonial timeframe, 16th and 17th centuries). More importantly, the American colonies initiated mercantilism first, and subsequentially what we now call (and often praise) capitalism, which would soon turn into the scientific revolution and into the Industrialization subverting western culture by the 1800s.


 * The colonisation of America then, had an impact on the Catholic Crusades which had been Europe's main mission during most of the Medieval times: in the 1400s, the 1200s successfully lucrative Italian Crusaders sacking the Byzantine Constantinople in the name of Latin Papacy had just been translated into a defeat confronting the expanding Ottoman Empire while, as said, the Iberian Spanish kingdoms and Portuguese (the most involved in the trading with the colonies, at least across the first two centuries of colonisation) had just been almost fully turned to European Christianity, after centuries of Afro-Asian Islam. So, if it's true that the 'Western world' is founded upon Christianity as stated in the lede of the article, I think mentioning the colonial period is a must when pointing the major influences of the modern era. 2A00:23C4:7155:6D00:10B0:5852:29FF:79DA (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Guys, you can't argue about your personal views on this page. What we can argue about is how to treat different authors. Wikipedia is not a place for your to place your opinions. The West as defined by colonialism is one valid definition that has wide usage -- as are "European Christendom", "Hellenistic influenced places", "Greco-Romanity", "the wealthy world", "the liberal world", "the democratic world", categories which all have different sets of members. This page is not a place to argue about which definition is the "right" one, we have to present all of them.--Calthinus (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, Calthinus I guess it all boils down to this question:Why can Occident etymology remain in the lead, but not West etymology? And why would it make anything better if West etymology is found in body, and not in lead, as you suggested in one of your edit summaries? Is it clutter because it is found near the top? If so, then it being "clutter" is illusory, and must not be true112.211.219.230 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well, I will move it so people will see the definition right away. That may be your problem from the beginning.112.211.219.230 (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this is not the issue, and your "illusory" comment is ridiculous. "Occident" is not a term that is typically used in English and furthermore it is shared by many languages so its etymology and meaning are important to state. The Proto-Germanic etymology of "West" is totally irrelevant as anyone who speaks English knows what West means, and its origin in Proto-Germanic (whose speakers certainly had no idea of this concept as all they knew were there tiny villages and maybe a 5km radius around them) is totally irrelevant to the topic here. --Calthinus (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, vapid, even vile comments ("whose speakers certainly had no idea of this concept as all they knew were there tiny villages and maybe a 5km radius around them"....wut? Are you full of contempt for such people?). This is an ENGLISH Wikipedia, not a Universal wikipedia. And I strongly sense that you are really driven by ideology, and I doubt you can offer proof tnat I'm wrong in this regard. I have already proven your points, dmeonstrated extensively their falseness, so there's no reason for me to take you too seriously unless you offer some actual serious arguments. So goodbye-maybe for now.11:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.234.99 (talk)
 * No I am not "full of contempt" or "driven by ideology" -- if you want to have any semblance of respectful dialogue, you need seriously need to assume good faith and quit accusing people of "agendas" for even as trivial things as mentioning that Zeus was Athena's father. Additionally insulting the intelligence of your fellow editors with terms like "vapid" is also unacceptable. The fact --whether you like it or not-- is that speakers of Proto-Germanic had no concept of the West because all they knew were their hamlets and the neighboring ones, so how on earth were they supposed to have ideas of geopolitical concepts like "the West"? They knew of the cardinal direction "the West", they did not know of the concept being discussed on this page. Latin speakers and Greek speakers might have had a fuzzy idea that may have evolved into the current one, although what it meant was very different-- it included North Africa but certainly did not include Northern Europe, the reverse of hte definition used today, for example, while they didn't know that North America, now considered an integral "Western" region, even existed. --Calthinus (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Uhmm. I introduced the Proto-Germanic bit of info during last two weeks in which I made many edits. I'm not an etymology expert and, although correct, it's probably better to swap it with PIE which stands for Proto-Indo-European, because PIE is used very often when you are to indicate the root of a word. I used Proto-Germanic because it is what most sources on the etymology of West report but was open to corrections.. etymology was not a great concern to me, when I began editing here. I can't do it myself because the article has just been locked against IP editing. 213.205.193.23 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 213, I appreciate that your addition was done under good faith. However I do not think it was an improvement, and changing Proto-Germanic to Proto-Indo-European ironically would make it even worse. I know a lot of people on Wiki like to read trivia. But in the end, taken to an extreme we end up with clutter, and worse, misleading clutter. Why is PIE not a good idea? Because once again the concept did not exist when it was spoken (the cardinal direction may have, but once again that is a separate entity in an entirely different domain). Would you cite a Proto-Indo-European etymology for the American South (it would be ultimately from PIE *sóh₂wl̥, meaning "sun")? No, of course not-- because that language's speakers had no concept of the US South, so its irrelevant trivia, and hence just clutter (and could theoretically give the false impression that the idea of the US South was around when Proto-Indo-European was... although few people would be so stupid to think that). Same goes here. Anyhow on some points I may open RfCs. --Calthinus (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on images in the lede
What should the policy for images in the lede be in this article? I offer three options to discuss:

Option 1 -- no restrictions Option 2 -- no maps Option 3 -- no images at all.


 * Support Option 3, otherwise Option 2. How exactly the "Western world" is defined depends on context, era, and personal opinion. It may variously mean Greco-Romanity, European Christendom, Western Christendom, the capitalist world, the liberal world, the democratic world, "colonizer countries" or the developed world, in addition to a number of other less common definitions. Our job is to discuss all these usages and not to argue that one or the other is a more correct definition. Placement of images and especially maps on this article in the lede has in the past inherently violated this neutrality, because only a few images can fit in the lede, and those that are chosen will tend to favor one usage over the others. The way to observe WP:NPOV is to leave them out of the lede entirely.--Calthinus (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 1. I absolutely do not see the need for any kind of restriction on which images to use. Which images are to be used is to be decided by WP:CONSENSUS, that's what talkpages are for. By imposing restrictions we are artificially restricting the scope of the debate. Khirurg (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 1. I agree totally with Khirurg, why we should need restrictions? above there many examples , for example the Italian image of the Pantheon, Rome was a long  constructive consensus.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * hence there is also option 2. What is your opinion of the fact that the Huntington map, currently the first image onthe page at the top of the lede, has been the subject of perhaps the most talkpage angst over the years ([I mean, really, people have very strong opinions about this...])? --Calthinus (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 1 No reason to impose general restrictions, just gain consensus for adding/removing certain images. I am not a big fan of including the images of the Parthenon and Pantheon as it gives the impression the Western world can be distilled to a style of architecture. But I realize they are intended to be symbolic of ancient Greek and Rome, so I am not strongly opposed to their inclusion. The Huntington map is reasonably informative in my opinion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A modern definition may include countries which..
A modern definition may very well include "politico-economically western" countries affected by the 2008 financial crisis. The financial crisis is called a global one, but it actually was a Western world crisis (try google "western world" and "economic crisis"). The 2009 map aside shows western countries colored brown (indicating a negative GDP growth); and you may wonder what Chad and Cameroon (for example) have to do with the West.. well their official languages include european French and English. Same goes for Saudi Arabia, in the sense that in modern times, Western world is a vague definition.

Of course not saying that brown countries are definitely western and green are definitely not (consider Poland and Australia exceptions too, for example). I'm rather suggesting to include this map and perspective based on the 2008 economic crisis and subsequent 2009's recession, well-sourced on the web about it having affected the Western world more than elsewhere.

For example under subsection 'Modern political definition' a new paragraph like this: "With regards to economic policies, countries of the Western world also share common ideology and financial structures. The financial crisis in 2008 involved Western countries more than others." ..and add the map aside.

Just my 2 cents.. 213.205.195.111 (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"Age of Discovery's Christian imperialism".
User:MayMay7 removed the term "Christian imperialism" as unsourced, see here. User:ScepticismOfPopularisation restored it, saying it was an example of BLUE. I reinstated MayMay7's edit as I thought the term needed to be explicitly supported. SoP reverted my edit, giving a source (see here) that does not use the term. Should the term be included? Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Isn't this pretty obvious case. Imperialism has been practiced by many different powers through centuries. Imperialism by European powers during Age of Discovery. Imperialism by Ottoman Empire in Anatolia and Middle-East/Arabia. Imperialism by Japanese Empire in East and South-East Asia. Imperialism by Roman Empire in Mediterranean region. Imperialism by Umayyad Caliphate in North-Africa and Iberian Peninsula. All of these are cases of imperialism and conquest and during all of the these the main religion of the conquering power spread. But the religion rarely (never) was the original or driving force behind the imperialist intentions. More like religion has been used as a tool to subject the conquered areas to the belief system of the conqueror. That's why there's little support for term like "Christian Imperialism", or "Islamic Imperialism" or "Shinto Imperialism" among mainstream scholars. HOWEVER spread of Christianity during Age of Discovery because of imperialism is well documented and this can be found in all the articles talking about imperialism during Age of Discovery and in articles about country specific imperialism (like Spanish Empire...).


 * Better term would be European Imperialism (or even Western Imperialism) as there's even an article about it that could be easily linked here.


 * MayMay7 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Christian Imperialism is well-supported in sources but since it's not "mainstream" (google returns many more results for "european imperialism") it's about NPOV not BLUE. Also.. the reason it's not mainstream is because religion and war are distinguished rather than merged (let alone after the 9/11 terrorist attacks). So we should vote.. and I would be voting for neutrality (if I cared about such a voting, yet I don't..im just an ip..actually a previously banned user). And if I were to hint more on this I would be onto underling it is about "European imperialism" versus "Christian imperialism" in the first place, with former being considered more about money and China while the latter about African slave trade. The fact "Western imperialism" is also used as a synonym is interestingly complex, but so much: this term is used for imperialism began later (often called 'New Imperialism') in 19th century and with more entrepreneurial than merely military goals then (since by the industrial revolution, entrepreneurship began systematically replacing manual labour) and notably involved the 'Scramble of Africa' and the occupation of parts of the Eastern world.


 * If you will, there's also more recent imperialism called Neoimperialism, began in the 1960s and revolving around "global capitalism", still a Western world affair then. Definitely the Age of Discovery goes along with imperialism, because before the discovery of the American continent, it was rather about trading worldwide without colonizing, meaning that worldwide modern colonialism was absent before the 1490s: the discovery of America is credited to Columbus who was a merchant trader at sea (also a slave trader) indeed, known for documenting the trade routes through the 1490s on behalf of recently Christianized (by the Crusades) Iberian peninsula. It's obviously relevant that the modern concept of "West" emerged by the Age of Discovery which had heavy imperialistic traits. Christianization existed before the Age of Discovery though, and it was a form of imperialism in itself although on a smaller scale, because indeed the head of it was the Catholic Pope of the Church of Rome, who used to crown the most powerful Christian monarch of the moment (since Early Middle Ages) as "Holy Emperor" thus it makes sense that sources use "Christian Imperialism" as well. Nevertheless, the Western world is linked to Christianization as predominantly belonging European history (the Western/Eastern distinction was born during Late Antiquity as we know by the article, to differentiate the Roman world from the Greek).


 * As said then, "European Imperialism" fits more as more mainstream, whilst "Christian Imperialism" only makes sense. And the same goes for "Western Imperialism" which, at this point, seems the fittest by the way. 149.254.184.82 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

What I meant with my suggestion is that it would make more sense to use "European Imperialism" as Wikipedia already has an article about it and in that article there's plenty of information about spread of Christianity during that time period. I'm thinking like this because if I would personally want to search information about "the West" and "imperialism" I would like the article about "the West" to link/redirect me from page that talks about "the West" (this page) to the imperialism practiced by "the West" (page European Imperialism). It just feels much more logical path to follow and thus much more logical use of terminology.

MayMay7 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Christian imperialism should be included to emphasize the Christian motivations of the conquerors that "Western imperialism" fails to provide. God, gold and glory is a basic academic term that redirects to imperialism- it shouldn't be a controversy at all that "Christian imperialism" should be added.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * IP, a there are a few dubious claims can be found on your comment.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please present sourcing for the specific term "Christian imperialism" in the context of the Age of Discovery. If these are basic academic terms, there will not be a problem in providing sourcing. Personal opinions or comments on what we "should be including" or not are not of much use. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it is still not right. Now there is the term "Christian Imperialism" as a user wanted to necessarily add it. However the word itself now links to the "Imperialism" article and the "Imperialism" article doesn't talk anything about "Christian Imperialism" nor any other religious imperialism. This is why I thought the word "European Imperialism" would be better because the "European Imperialism" article talks about the spread of Christianity unlike the general imperialism article. I don't know/understand what is the point to misguide the reader using words that don't even lead to right article if the reader wants to learn more. Not only that but the word "Christian Imperialism" leads to a page "God, gold and glory" that doesn't even exist and only redirects to the general article about Imperialism that again doesn't have anything about Christianity nor about any other religion.

I checked the user's contributions page that necessarily wanted to add the word "Christian Imperialism" into the article and he/she/they seems to be very critical (which I normally support 100%) about religions and Christianity especially. However I think that in this case the negative (or overtly skeptical) stance towards religions might make him/her/them blind for a much more logical choice of words.

TL;DR There's a word "Christian imperialism" that leads to a page that has nothing about Christianity nor about Christian imperialism. The reader ends up in a dead end.

My proposition is (and was) "In modern usage, Western world sometimes refers to Europe and to areas whose populations largely originate from Europe, through the Age of Discovery's European imperialism.

This way the sentence has the key words that logically lead the reader from page to another. Word "Europe" leads to the article about Europe and history of Europe. Word "originate from Europe" leads to article about European diaspora. And the word "European imperialism" leads to article about colonial empires which has every European based colonial empire listed and linked to their specific articles.

My points why to use "European imperialism" instead of "Christian imperialism": 1. There's already a page about colonial empires that has every European colonial empire listed and their specific articles linked. 2. There already exists an article about colonial empires and about European colonial empires. There's no page for Christian imperialism or empires. (the dead end mentioned earlier thing) 3. Word "European imperialism" is MUCH more widely used than word "Christian imperialism" in both Wikipedia and in academia in general.

MayMay7 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You still have not responded to "European imperialism" failing to provide the Christian motivations of the Western imperialists. ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the term is not unheard of [here's Google Scholar] [this source about "Christian imperialism" motivating the transatlantic slave trade is of course notable to this discussion in particular]. Like it or not "Christian imperialism" is discussed (Islamic too, Shinto not so much outside of the 1930s and 1940s). Given that while it's not politically correct to say (i.e. both the European left and the US Christian right will crucify me...) the general accepted view is that Europe in its modern conception emerged as a Christian response to the Muslim "Other", and that indeed as per many definitions "the West" is equated to "Catholic/Protestant Christianity" (occasionally E. Orthodox, this is rarer), it is in fact on topic. For the sake of NPOV it would be nice to have a source discussing the various pro- and contra- aspects of linking the concept to the West. Of course there was a long historical trajectory that this developed along-- it started with things like the Baltic Crusades (where pagan Prussians who refused to accept Jesus as their lord and savior were um, slaughtered en masse), and see also highlights like the Crusades and the Reconquista, the latter of which has a direct connection to Spanish and Portuguese colonization of hte Americas which can be seen as a successor project (and from the Christian POV has been presented as such). That it is relevant and deserves coverage, however, really seems quite clearly the case to me. Also May, SoP has a point, "European imperialism" simply doesn't cut it as it doesn't describe the motives at all (plus at the time it occurred there were plenty of non-Christian Europeans as there are today as well, who were not involved). A possible compromise is indeed Western imperialism or possibly European Christian imperialism. --Calthinus (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Untitled
Yet again (after more than year): Czech republic and Slovakia are not newly industrialized countries! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.145.73 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia are not newly industrialised countries. I do not understand why someone still insert this nonesence. Newly industrialized countries are South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Turkey. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country Period! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:96CA:4526:416E:944E:96F9:61E1 (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the sentence: „… although the OECD includes countries, namely, Chile, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey, that are not yet fully industrial countries, but newly industrialised countries.“. It is nonsense. Newly industrialized countries are South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Turkey. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country Btw: Czech republic is industrial country for past 200 years.

Russia not Western although it's fully European at some degree
I'm reading edit comments about the non-Western status of European High-Income Russia. Russia is mostly industrialized and culturally active across its Western half, so it is nowadays considered inside the European continent by many, particularly since early 2000s.

The reason I believe, is that apparently one essential Western world's requisite is Christianity YES - Orthodox Christianity NO.. (or something on that line). * later added : for example, no Orthodox (and/or Slavic) country has ever won the Football world cup, which indeed should be named 'Half world cup' because more than half of world's citizens never even qualified to play it (let alone win).. well Croatia this time, as a slavic country, got a chance, good luck in lifting that cup! 2A00:23C4:710E:2700:859F:3508:BDA2:83F3 (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ** later added : nope, they didn't, but I guess having Russia host the competition, both an Orthodox and a Slavic country, means Russia is regarded Western world at some good degree. 2A00:23C4:710E:2700:B9CA:B27F:977A:94E (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Very simple. Other Christian countries of Eastern Europe face the same paradox. On religious grounds, the Western world is historically Catholic-driven: its religious narrative belongs to the fall of ancient Rome becoming the head of the European Church. So if a country's religious narrative is that of Orthodoxy, historically rooted in  detaching from the Roman Catholic view  (not just criticising it, as with Protestantism) since the fall of ancient Rome, that's 100% non-Western. Western Christianity and Cristianity itself, wouldn't have been so based on the religious division between Western European and Eastern European, if Western European people had not ended governing the American continent (after shooting down most natives since 1490s). That's the [surpassed] classical definition. 2A00:23C4:7155:6D00:C557:5C90:A2AE:4842 (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Guyana, Suriname, French Guyana, Cape Verde
Concerning the map. French Guyana, being an integral part of France, yet is coloured teal. Suriname and Guyana, while not part of Latin America, appear to me equally Western or equally related to the Western world as Lat-Am countries are. Is the map a wrong representation or did Huntingdon in fact perceive them differently? What with Cape Verde? 2A02:A03F:50C3:6C00:CCC3:B625:DEFD:315D (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Although Guyana and Suriname were colonized by European countries, they received many Indian, African and South Asian immigrants. Guyana and Suriname were influenced by Hinduism and also by indigenous, they are not considered Western by most authors because of these factors that I mentioned. Cape Verde was colonized by Portugal and speaks Portuguese (which is a Western language), but Cape Verde is now much closer to African culture than Western European. − Allice Hunter   (Inbox)  00:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Samuel Huntington Obsession?
Who has such a hard-on for this single anglo-centric author, to the point of puting a map at the very top that contradicts the rest of the article? Latin America, SPECIALLY the Southern Cone countries are 100% western, maybe some like Bolivia are very influenced by indigenous cultures but there is much less influence from them on a country like mine (Argentina) that there is black african influence in the US wich somehow despite being a relative new western nation can decide wich are and arent western, despite some LA countries being much more like Europe, come visit Argentina or Uruguay and say its not western, 80+% white people, 90% catholics, a constitution modeled on the US one, all goverment buildings looking like French buildings, no death penalty like Europe, gender and societal customs like Europe (Specially Italy and Spain). Not including these countries as western is just anglo-centric BS! Maybe just because they are not satellites of the US that dont blindy follow it like the UK or other Anglo countries... ? 181.47.138.89 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I dispute that the map in question contradicts the rest of the article. The article makes quite clear that there is a difference of opinion regarding Latin America's status as part of the "Western world". I do not dispute your characterization of the Western-ness of much of Latin America, but neither your nor my opinion is the issue here; we must cite specific reliable sources. The map in question indicates that it is sourced to one particular reliable source. If you can provide an equally reliable source to dispute Huntington's characterization, please let us know, and we can discuss that here to reach the proper consensus. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what we think of Huntington, it is quite clear this page gives him probably much more weight than he deserves. His theories are not well-received in academia and ironically it is far from impossible that the reason a lot of people even know his name is the long-time showcasing of his views on Wikipedia. This was actually how I first learned of him.--Calthinus (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Am I the only one who has actually read Huntington's book? He says that Latin America MAY be in the Western World; he does not exclude it completely. That map is incomplete, it should highlight Latin America as well with a different colour scheme to comply with the source. But there was an "edition" war and some users keep to revert the map to show only Europe, the US, Canada, and Australia. Hohenheim (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a full quotation of the text provided by Huntington on his preamble on Latin America with links provided, no further confussion should be had about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Man here in Argentina we had the 76 ditactorship whoose "slogan" was "The Argentina Nation, Western and Christian". I think there is too much Hunginton influence in the article, and more generally, too much anglo influence. I live here, it may not have some more anglo traditions or the 100% adherence to the US view of the world (specially economy) but I went to Europe and its the same CULTURALLY wich I think is more important an deep to define "westerness" than temporary polliticaly or economic orientation. In the rest of SA for example Bolivia is VERY different and the culture is a lot more mixed with indigenous elements, but this country, Uruguay and Chile are basically culturally Europe (CONTINENTAL NOT ANGLO!!) in South America... here in common usage we see ourself as western in values and culture. The view of others outside Hungiton or the US should be taken into account, its just a lot more Continental European than Anglo! I know a is a lot simpler just saying all of SA is in X group and be done with it but there ARE differences in "indigenous" influence beteween Paraguay and Urugay for example... 2800:810:46E:763:986E:A868:66B7:3FDE (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:46E:763:986E:A868:66B7:3FDE (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There definitely is an obsession with the particular author, no matters if in real life he is quite criticized and stereotyped as alternative. I do not see any problem with his map existing in the article, but it can't be in the beginning as long as it's not the map defining modern western world, but hardly western world 500 years ago, when, I doubt if an average European peasant had any idea what happens 5 kms from his village Johny1111 (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that this way the article is full of contradictions, especially in the part that "today orthodox nations are western" meanwhile the article implies they are not as early as in the beginning. The map will be removed as soon as possible Johny1111 (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Huntington (popular 1900s American scholar) POV push
Popular late 1900s views are being contested as outdated by a couple of interested editors. I believe the reason his map is at the top of the page is that a pre-2000s scholar about the Western World is preferred for its pre-September 11 views.

His books are from the 1990s, but only 20 years are nothing compared to this topic spanning millenniums.

Also, it appears these editors are Italian (or Greek) thus it seems a constructed POV push because of this year's EU changing Italian leaderships (Parliament and BCE Presidencies).. and because "nobody messes up with Italians (or Greeks)" of course.

Just my 2 cents.. 149.254.248.125 (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Edited: it could be specified that the map is "post-Cold War", just to convey the existence of other maps more recent (even though I suppose the editors willing to remove Huntington's map from the lede may imply that Greece had always been a Western country). Truth is that Huntington was culturally- and religion-wise and as far as I can tell, in the 1990s Orthodoxy was not a Western attribute thus he may be somewhat anachronistic for modern-day Internet-era, but only 20 years ago he was very accurate: it's true that Greece is politically (economics and war) part of Western Europe, but culturally speaking it was a distinct country. Additionally I suppose the best way to improve the article is to add in the lede from this, in which the Cold War is geographically contextualized. Specifically, these bits:

"Before the Cold War era, the traditional Western viewpoint identified Western Civilization with the Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) countries and culture. Its political usage was temporarily changed by the antagonism during the Cold War in the mid-to-late 20th Century (1947-1991).

The term originally had a literal geographic meaning."

Nothing else. 149.254.248.125 (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

He is straightforwardly stated as "controversial" in the beginning of the section about his views. Again at the end of the section it is stated his views have been considered biased on a number of occasions, and sources are provided. How can controversial (as stated in the article) views be depicted as standard on the "front page" ? He has clearly divided the world solely based on religion. How is Papua New Guinea more western than Greece? Modern Greece had been ruled by western European royal families for over 150 years, modern Greece has belonged in the west since its formation in 1821, and it's one of the oldest EU members, set aside the ancient past (the Parthenon's image right bellow Huntington's map is an irony by itself). Byzantine Greek scholars spread classical knowledge in Italy after the fall of Constantinople giving rise to the Renaissance, and the Greek war of independence was heavily influenced by the french Enlightenment, and even during the Ottoman years it was mostly Greeks who served as diplomats for the Ottoman Empire in the West (check the Ottoman Greeks article). Modern Greece is undoubtedly politically, culturally and socially closer to Italy and even Spain than it is to Bulgaria or Romania for example, religion is not enough for countries to form cultural groups. Greece had no relations during the Cold War era with its Eastern Bloc orthodox neighbors and that lasted for nearly 60 years, check the cultural difference between western and eastern Germany for example. The editors changing back the map are obviously biased, a country's failing economy (which is even now better than some of the countries' listed as western by Huntington) is not enough to remove it from the West. 176.58.227.190 (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * He is depicted as standard because no other sources are discussed. Religion is not enough to form cultural groups? I disagree plenty. We're all living a doctrine in one way or the other, and as well if you live in a Protestant or Orthodox or Catholic or Muslim or Buddhist or Hinduist country (just to mention the major ones), more likely that not its doctrines (or "ways of life") are never totally apart from the main religion. Greece IS the country of the AD 1054 Schism (and lasted until the Cold War by the way, thus a thousand years long), and still IS mainly Orthodox, thus it's not an invention to depict it as a non-western country, although there could definitely be either direct or indirect POV problems (that's why I mentioned editor's nationalities), and it does feel out of the blue especially in our post-1990s Internet-Age. It's funny that the Western World has roots in the religious 1054 division where its craddle is (Greece and Rome) and that it's politically (economically and militarily) united, yet according to popular scholars such as mainstream Huntington, it's culturally separated. However, this seems the case.


 * And without other sources, the Admins of Wikipedia will never even try to discuss the chance of a POV. So good luck but again, this is not how this article can reasonably improve (but it's in quite good standing already, since last summer it's far better I think). It's all rather a waste of time for both the editors willing to size down Huntington's views and for those with enough administrative power to revert.
 * Edited on 31 January 2019: without new sources, it may only be accepted to add to Hungtington's map. For example, if we added a map from the economic definition of Western world (or even more, it would result in something like the picture aside (delightful actually). 149.254.57.148 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobody said Huntington's views are invalid, they shouldn't be removed by no means. But to be depicted at the front page? When the article clearly states his view is controversial and biased according to some? It is just a picture. Nobody discusses removing the section about him entirely, but for a controversial map to be depicted as standard is highly misleading. The map has to be removed from the front page or not have a map there at all if that's the problem. And besides, the most modern definition of the west includes the entirety of the EU (including all the ex-eastern bloc countries that are part of it) so if the matter is up-to-dateness, Huntington is obsolete by a long shot. 176.58.227.190 (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

"most modern definition of the west includes the entirety of the EU"

And what makes Denmark, Sweden, and Finland more "western" that Iceland and Norway? Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. My point was not that in order for a european country to be western it has to be a part of the EU, but if a country is included in the EU it does definitely belong in the sphere of influence of the west. 23:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)176.58.225.142 (talk)

Map of the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire
Under the "Middle Ages" section of the article there is a map of both the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. The caption under the map states that the Byzantine Empire is in pink and the Holy Roman Empire is in yellow, but if I'm not mistaken the Holy Roman Empire is in pink and the Byzantine Empire is in yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A908:A00:6C9E:B066:8EAA:382F (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Huntington's view on top of the first page?
I think it's highly not fitting for Huntigton's map to be depicted at the top of the first page of the article. It doesn't include Greece, Argentina or South Africa in the west, but it does include Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Finland, the Baltics and Papua New Guinea? Huntington obviously has some points but it's so misinformative to depict his point of view as the standard point of view by putting his map on the front page. Most other sources outside of Wikipedia include Greece not just as part of the west, but even as part of western Europe, and definitely all sources include Latin America in the west. --176.58.225.236 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The map has been replaced by another one that involves the main definitions. − Allice Hunter   (Inbox)  00:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Has Huntington sold his soul to the devil for his views to be depicted as standard on wikipedia? Somebody reversed the map user Alice Hunter provided back to Huntigton's. Huntington's views are fanatically edited back on on other articles as well with no excuse/source/voting 01:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)01:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)176.58.227.212 (talk)

I experienced the same thing, i removed this funny map of Huntington from the beginning of this page (the map can remain if it's so necessary but in another part of the article) but some users who also give me the impression of asperger syndrome sufferers from the way they talk, reverse the edit and the map is always back on the top. I am thinking of talking to the creator of Wikipedia about this issue Johny1111 (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC):


 * See previous discussion at Talk:Western world/Archive 5. X1\ (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Rename this Article to American Imperialist Fantasy
There is no country called 'the Western World' or any unified state based on this (and there never has been). All I am seeing here is a fantasy of Jews, Christians, Romans, and Greeks running half the planet in a fictional empire. This fantasy is entirely of American origin. America is not the EU or EFTA. Civilisation can be traced to Vinca Culture in Europe, not even in Rome or Greece (at least not originally). Strict fantasy and American beliefs should not be pushed onto other cultures. There is no possible way anyone with a proper education can view this as a legitimate article or anything other than the delusions of American imperialists. The tone of the article comes off as 'Cold War' expansionism. This is not in any way historically accurate nor does it even politically represent the world today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.157.121 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Article is extremely one-sided propaganda. It misrepresents some of the cited sources, which clearly document Middle-Eastern roots/influences. Herodotus never referred to Greco-Persian Wars as Euro vs. Asia wars. And "The West" concept has roots in East-West Roman split. 58.124.206.239 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Tagging article as POV. This article is blatant far-right/Eurocentric/white-nationalist propaganda. Article needs serious improvement. 58.124.206.239 (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * IE countries.svg

Latin America
Here are my reasons why I think we should use the map with Latin America

(The Sr Guy (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC))
 * Latin America was removed from the original map suddenly and without any consensus
 * Huntington considers Latin Amerifca very different from Turkey and the Orthodox world, he himself says that in general researchers consider that the West has three main components (Europe, North America and Latin America) while talking about how Latin American society acts differently from both the United States, Canada, Western Europe and Australasia. latin america should definitely stay on the lead.
 * Huntington says that Latin Amerifca could be considered a sub-civilization within Western civilization, or a distinct civilization intimately related to the West and descended from it (like a child from the west)
 * he never considers Latin america completely different from the west in general, he only considered the second option the most appropriate, and useful (only) for an analysis focused on the international political consequences of civilizations
 * In whole his book he is talking about Latin America as one of the major civilizations, not as part of the Western. For exaple: "In contrast, people in other non-Western civilizations —Hindu, Orthodox, Latin American, African —may affirm the distinctive character of their cultures, but as of the mid-1990s had been hesitant about proclaiming their superiority to Western culture." I also asked you to stop removing sourced content. You are still removing without reason the text from the book (For political consequences, the second option [not sub-civilization] is the most adequate.). If we take a broader concept, then we could also mark Turkey, Russia and whole Orthodox world (for example Cuba is not more western than Greece). They are also considered already part of the West or in the process of joining the West. Without this, the lead is more accurate. As said Jingiby, your view is quite fringe. And last but not least, your editing violates the rules of wikipedia - duplication of images, in the related paragraph it makes more sense. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ok, Here are some things:

if you want we can use this file which includes both latin america and the orthodox world since you are talking about we taking a broader concept.(The Sr Guy (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC))
 * Still Latin America was remove from the old map without consensus
 * the images were already duplicated before (with the old map), so why would that be a problem now?
 * Huntington still admits that in general research considers Latin America as part of the West (although he himself does not consider) and even so he himself considers Latin america very closely to the west.
 * Latin America is part of Western Civilization as per sources. There is no consensus to remove the old map. GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors may also want to study this Western culture article as well as go deeper into this Roman Empire. GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have read the discussion above at all. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you(The Sr Guy (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC))


 * I'm in agreement as well. Khirurg (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to say that I disagree with the inclusion of that file proposed by @The Sr Guy, as it made Madeira and Canary Islands look almost invisible, when in the previous map they were clearly visible. I could accept that file including Russia provided that it includes again a visually identifiable version of Madeira and the Canary Islands, both territories of the European Union and part of the Western European countries Portugal and Spain. Both Madeira and the Canary Islands are cearly visible and indicated as Western in the current map, while in the map proposed by The Sr Guy they are virtually invisible from the PC device. And Latin America is explicily included in the current map so I don't see any problem with the current map.James343e (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I created a new map, where it is easy to see Madeira and Canary Islands. The map now include Latin America and the "torn countries" that are either already part of the West or in the process of joining the West. That should solve all for now. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ..."and "torn countries" that are either already part of the West or in the process of joining the West" Country, or a region can't "erase" thousands of years of its civilization and now be in the process of joining another civilization. Like if it was some "upgrade" - also "Western" doesn't mean "better". I'm sorry, but your map is incorrect.  GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't like the current map either(The Sr Guy (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC))
 * It is not some upgrade, if you read the book then you can see that he explains there why he considers them "torn countries". I just took over the text that is already used in this article. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * by "torn countries” do you mean countries influenced by Western culture? (read Hollywood, Mc Donalds and other "garbage”). Also, look Jirka.h23, you included Russia in your map, if so, then why not Serbia? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because in the book he does not mention Serbia like Russia, read the book, he explains there everything. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea?
The map includes Papua New Guinea as a "Western" country, which seems a bit odd. 2602:306:CFEA:170:ED7E:4E95:F5AB:5417 (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Definitely not a Western country. 2001:8003:8608:2200:2963:1138:6378:653 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is considered Western by author Samuel Huntington. − Allice Hunter   (Inbox)  00:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Did he explain why? I'm curious why PNG would be Western if say, the Philippines isn't. 2602:306:CFEA:170:4882:AB40:9E4B:5604 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a Commonwealth realm and still under British cultural influence. However it is very conservative in comparison to most European countries. "95.6% of citizens identified themselves as members of a Christian church" and the dominant church in the area is the Catholic Church. Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I worked out why, is because it didn't fit anywhere else. showed the full image in a link below. (same link as below) Irtapil (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I came to check this page because of Papua being included. Definitely NOT a Western nation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.164.210 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I was about to say the same about that image from . Did the book actually include Papua_New_Guinea in the Western World in 1996? or is that coloured by mistake? They got independence from Australia in 1975. They have Christianity but so does Uganda and most of Latin America is Catholic; they have English but so do India, Pakistan, Niigeria, Singapore, and a lot of others. Irtapil (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I really doubt it was colored by mistake. Several other maps that consider the same author as their primary reference include Papua New Guinea. I don't know what criteria that author defined this and I also believe that Latin America and several countries in Africa and Asia are much closer to Western culture than Papua. − Allice Hunter   (Inbox)  19:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Irtapil, yes it was included on the map in the book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order from Samuel P. Huntington. I uploaded an illustration for you on internet: here. BTW, you can comment on the ongoing discussion below at Talk:Western world / RfC: Map / Discussion / Papua New Guinea. It seems, that we will remove it, as some reliable sources based on the book does not mention it that way. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Germanic/Nordic influence

 * Comment Why (Please note I am not a Nazi nor even a right-winger), is there nothing in the article about the influence of Germanic culture? Its influence on Western civilisation is vital. English-speaking parliaments are descended from the Wittgeamot of Kent.  Wikipedia: " The first recorded act of a witenagemot was the law code issued by King Æthelberht of Kent ca. 600, the earliest document which survives in sustained Old English prose; however, the witan was certainly in existence long before this time.[31] The Witan, along with the folkmoots (local assemblies), is an important ancestor of the modern English parliament." This influenced the governments of the entire English world, whom arguably largely follow  governmental systems based more on Germanic than Roman models.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigocat (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Be bold. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Huntington's map in the lede
There're good reasons why there are no sources depicting the Western world on a map: it's too arbitrary. And indeed Huntington's map (the only one available) was made with the fresh Cold war in mind and the communists. The Huntington's map is the only one available and that doesn't mean it is significative, rather that it is rare (and I mean rare as a nuclear arms race). What's in the lede should be part of the accepted mainstream view, not the expression of a special view. Many criticized Huntington nevertheless.

Are the missing Philippines to hide real Western expansionism while still caring for the favorable outcome of the Cold war? As far as I can tell, to have this map in the lede is an expression of arbitrariness resembling a militarization. Very unwelcome at an encyclopedia. If you really support the source then you would update the map to reflect Huntington's view on the Philippines. Don't think it would be plagiarism, as it is still very different from his map (https://web.archive.org/web/20070312101415/http://s02.middlebury.edu/FS056A/Herb_war/clash3.htm).

Truth is, a Cold war map of the West (again, the ONLY ONE available), is NOT NEEDED in the lede. It is unwelcome. And a million things changed since then. At the speed of light.

Not to mention the flow chart below the map I find extremely suitable to graphically incorporate the lede on its own, as an introduction to the article. Doesn't anyone? MedicalWorker (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree, it is still very illustrative and there is no better.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC))
 * I also agree that the map should stay, I would not take the example of the Philippines as so serious. But I'd rather see there a map without Latin America, if we take a broader concept, then we could also mark Turkey, Russia and whole Orthodox world. Without this, it is more accurate. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a Black Lives Matter supporter. You are a fool . For the same reasons you elaborated for the map to be removed, the chart should be removed too. Because as Samuel Huntington had the Communists in mind as you say, he and Quigley he cites for the chart also had the North-South divide in mind, which is why he omitted African civilisation from his Eastern Hemisphere flow chart. A flow chart may be graphically suitable as an introduction to an overall history-based page, but still it is as unwelcome and out of context as the map. So I agree with removing both from there. The map is antagonising to Eastern Europe but the chart is to Africa. To pick images based on a source titled Clash of civilisations is a bad idea. 109.249.184.207 (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The map should stay. Jingiby (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The map should go. This is a page about the Western world, not about Huntington's book. Why should Huntington's obvious oversights mark the tone for the article? Why is the inclusion of territories wholesale? Take for instance those who insist on the removal of Latin America as a whole. One could easily make the case that a large part of the EU does not belong to Huntington's view of the West based on cultural and political allegiance. The whole of the former Warsaw pact countries within the EU, taken in opposition to those left outside, makes little sense in the construction of "civilizations." Croatia in, but Serbia out. The Baltics in, but Ukraine out. Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary in, but Romania and Bulgaria out. It truly makes little to no sense. Latin America out as a whole, for some, would be a solution, but what about the Southern Cone? You would be hard pressed to find someone there who would not consider themselves "western." Huntington has been extensively criticized and while apparently useful as a metric (for whom though? Those tied to the "Anglo-Protestant culture" Huntington was so fond of? It's quite likely Huntington's view of the USA were just as skewed by this), the constant defense of his position as almost irreproachable makes for bad scholarship and bad referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.29.36.198 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It should make sense if you knew just a bit about these countries and not base your opinions of dumb Cold War stereotypes. Croatia is Catholic, Serbia Orthodox. Estonia and Latvia are traditionally Lutheran and Lithuania Catholic, Ukraine is Orthodox. Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary are Catholic, while Romania and Bulgaria are Orthodox. These Lutheran and Catholic countries have had almost their entire histories and cultures shaped by Western countries, except for the Cold War era. It makes no sense to re-define their historical and cultural groupings based on five decades of foreign rule, which has had socio-economic influence mostly and rather little influence in culture. H2ppyme (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Huntingtons map is missing Central Asia, which despite a non-orthodox majority, for the pusposesbif evolution of civilizations is considered part of the "Orthodox World." That said, Orthodox World is a rather shorthand description of what is more or less a "turko-mongol-scythian-slavic orthodox-mongolic islam Eurasian (steppe)" region. DxRxXxZx (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)