This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 150 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The East-West terminology is messy, and we can not avoid that, but there is one aspect of it which is not being mentioned: The Eastern Roman, Orthodox, Eastern European etc. These are referred to both by themselves and others as Western or Eastern depending upon the context. The confusion started in Alexander's time when the Greek speaking world took over the old East, and became more and more like it, despite still maintaining an old idea of being separate at the same time. I would agree that this can not be a core feature of the article, but I do suggest a cross reference at least, mentioning the potential confusion, to the other relevant articles. The subject is surprisingly important. You just have to see the way in which someone as important Putin makes the contrast.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Besides highly Europhile Russians (a legacy of Peter the Great), no one in Orthodox countries considers themselves as a part of the "West." West-East terminology is inherently Roman-centric, an unavoidable point. While the West is a more cohesive whole, largely divisable North and South between latin and germanic peoples, the East covers a very broad spectrum. It is also a cultural and geographic term, and has no correlation with vague concepts of "race" (itself a dubious and ever-changing system). Countries, especially Great Powers which aren't caught under a 'sphere of influence', which have underwent Westernisation programmes also can not realistically be considered a part of the West, examples of such include Russia (which caused a massive stir, the population being Slavophile and Eurasianophile), China, Japan and the Ottoman Empire. Historically, the East has been broken up do to it's great size and covers: the Near East (ottoman/byzantine East), Eurasia (the Eurasian steppe and now Eurasian Union), the Middle East and the Far East. Vyaiskaya ( talk) 20:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Why this article is so poor, compared to the Western world?
Western world (53,165 bytes) vs Eastern world (5,194 bytes). 90.166.249.165 ( talk) 01:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The term itself is Roman in origin. But many people who edit it have no understanding of culture and ethnicity or geography, and are obsessed with racial classifications, which are ahistorical to the terms usage. This page needs cleaning up. Vyaiskaya ( talk) 21:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I've added a notice for globalizing into different perspectives other than the existing "Western" perspective (as far as I can tell); obviously there is a lot of systemic bias on WP, and this is one of the striking differences on the coverage between "Western world" and "Eastern world" topics. This article will need to be expanded and written from outside the "Western" point of view. - OjdvQ9fNJWl ( talk) 10:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The term is inherently Roman in origin, and by descent English. East-West are limitless designations, and the East and the West were defined in Roman origin and an accepted part of the English language, they do no refer to cardinal East and West. This is an English language page and the meaning of East is within that historical ntoion and concept. Having a directional East or West is a separate conceptualisation to which everyone is both east and west of everyone else. The West can be laregly divided into germanic and latinate blocs (North and South), while the East, being a well-established Roman term, is divided into four parts: the Near East (Ottoman/Byzantine East), Eurasia (Eurasian steppe/EaU), the Middle East, and the Far East. Vyaiskaya ( talk) 21:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The caption doesn't fit the map - it misses out huge chunks of Asia (Western Asia, Central Asia, Siberia). It doesn't even include all the Far East, as it misses out the Russian Far East. The caption doesn't even match the actual map description, which is "The Eastern world, defined as "South Asia and beyond"...". Iapetus ( talk) 16:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This is problematic. While the West is a short definition, the East due to it's size has been subdivided: the Near East (i.e. former Ottoman/Byzantine), Eurasia (i.e. the steppe and EaU), the Middle East (Persia etc.), the Far East. Each should be clearly delineated to be explanatory of the complexity of what the 'East' implies. Vyaiskaya ( talk) 20:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I propose merging Orient into Eastern world. I think the content in Orient can easily be explained in the context of Eastern world, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Eastern world. Occident redirects to Western world, which I thank is logical. The Orient and Occident are just outdated (but still widely used) terms for Eastern and Western worlds. -- Heanor ( talk) 08:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Eastern Culture which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 21:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I heard that East Asia has a growing influence on the Western Popular Culture such as Anime, Manga, Karate, Taekwondo, Kpop, Squid Game etc, but has the West ever influenced East Asian Popular Culture ? 2A02:C7C:38BD:EC00:490F:5616:DDC1:C241 ( talk) 21:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 150 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The East-West terminology is messy, and we can not avoid that, but there is one aspect of it which is not being mentioned: The Eastern Roman, Orthodox, Eastern European etc. These are referred to both by themselves and others as Western or Eastern depending upon the context. The confusion started in Alexander's time when the Greek speaking world took over the old East, and became more and more like it, despite still maintaining an old idea of being separate at the same time. I would agree that this can not be a core feature of the article, but I do suggest a cross reference at least, mentioning the potential confusion, to the other relevant articles. The subject is surprisingly important. You just have to see the way in which someone as important Putin makes the contrast.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Besides highly Europhile Russians (a legacy of Peter the Great), no one in Orthodox countries considers themselves as a part of the "West." West-East terminology is inherently Roman-centric, an unavoidable point. While the West is a more cohesive whole, largely divisable North and South between latin and germanic peoples, the East covers a very broad spectrum. It is also a cultural and geographic term, and has no correlation with vague concepts of "race" (itself a dubious and ever-changing system). Countries, especially Great Powers which aren't caught under a 'sphere of influence', which have underwent Westernisation programmes also can not realistically be considered a part of the West, examples of such include Russia (which caused a massive stir, the population being Slavophile and Eurasianophile), China, Japan and the Ottoman Empire. Historically, the East has been broken up do to it's great size and covers: the Near East (ottoman/byzantine East), Eurasia (the Eurasian steppe and now Eurasian Union), the Middle East and the Far East. Vyaiskaya ( talk) 20:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Why this article is so poor, compared to the Western world?
Western world (53,165 bytes) vs Eastern world (5,194 bytes). 90.166.249.165 ( talk) 01:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The term itself is Roman in origin. But many people who edit it have no understanding of culture and ethnicity or geography, and are obsessed with racial classifications, which are ahistorical to the terms usage. This page needs cleaning up. Vyaiskaya ( talk) 21:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I've added a notice for globalizing into different perspectives other than the existing "Western" perspective (as far as I can tell); obviously there is a lot of systemic bias on WP, and this is one of the striking differences on the coverage between "Western world" and "Eastern world" topics. This article will need to be expanded and written from outside the "Western" point of view. - OjdvQ9fNJWl ( talk) 10:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The term is inherently Roman in origin, and by descent English. East-West are limitless designations, and the East and the West were defined in Roman origin and an accepted part of the English language, they do no refer to cardinal East and West. This is an English language page and the meaning of East is within that historical ntoion and concept. Having a directional East or West is a separate conceptualisation to which everyone is both east and west of everyone else. The West can be laregly divided into germanic and latinate blocs (North and South), while the East, being a well-established Roman term, is divided into four parts: the Near East (Ottoman/Byzantine East), Eurasia (Eurasian steppe/EaU), the Middle East, and the Far East. Vyaiskaya ( talk) 21:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The caption doesn't fit the map - it misses out huge chunks of Asia (Western Asia, Central Asia, Siberia). It doesn't even include all the Far East, as it misses out the Russian Far East. The caption doesn't even match the actual map description, which is "The Eastern world, defined as "South Asia and beyond"...". Iapetus ( talk) 16:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This is problematic. While the West is a short definition, the East due to it's size has been subdivided: the Near East (i.e. former Ottoman/Byzantine), Eurasia (i.e. the steppe and EaU), the Middle East (Persia etc.), the Far East. Each should be clearly delineated to be explanatory of the complexity of what the 'East' implies. Vyaiskaya ( talk) 20:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I propose merging Orient into Eastern world. I think the content in Orient can easily be explained in the context of Eastern world, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Eastern world. Occident redirects to Western world, which I thank is logical. The Orient and Occident are just outdated (but still widely used) terms for Eastern and Western worlds. -- Heanor ( talk) 08:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Eastern Culture which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 21:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I heard that East Asia has a growing influence on the Western Popular Culture such as Anime, Manga, Karate, Taekwondo, Kpop, Squid Game etc, but has the West ever influenced East Asian Popular Culture ? 2A02:C7C:38BD:EC00:490F:5616:DDC1:C241 ( talk) 21:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)