![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This article says: Up to World War I, "Western Europe" was thought to comprise France, the British Isles and Benelux. These countries represented the democratic victors of both world wars
Huh???
Can you please specify what countries were considered in this region during WW2, with NATO and Iron Curtain
Why is Belgium missing from the table in "Population of Western Europe"???
86.173.102.81 (
talk)
23:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Why would countries that are in Central Europe such as Germany, be considered part of Western Europe? It makes it very confusing.
I think most people would really be annoyed if Germany started another WW. If that were to happen the big guns of the world might just wipe Germany off the face of the Earth. If I were Germany I wouldn't try to take over the world again.
Hmm, that is the most obvious and dummest statement I have seen in a long time. First of all Germany started the WWII no doubts about it, but it did not start WWI all the european countries are guilty of that. The statement (above) is entirly correct but soo obvious. Everybody knows that, especially the Germans. I assure that they have lost any ambitions to conquer the world through military means. They prefer to conquer the world by bying the other countries, its cheaper and assured. In fact, no country has the power to conquer he world, even the allmighty USA. You just have to love the concept of assured mutual nuclear destruction, the great reason for peace. Flamarande 08:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Spain is part of Western Europe, and it was conquered by the Muslims.
Parts of Italy were part of the Eastern Roman Empire, as well.
corvus13
Actually, neither 'Spain' nor 'Italy' existed at the time. Probably the crucial difference was between those areas where the writ of the Roman pontificate ran versus those where it did not. This was to remain crucial; the Reformation was a reaction against the RC church and made little or no headway in Eastern Orthodox areas, etc. Greece is a difficult case: the cradle of Western civilization was not in the Western Empire. Filiocht 11:51, 27 January 2005 (UTC)
This article says:
Maybe some Poles might think of Poland as being part of Western Europe, but I think most people would say it is part of Central or Eastern Europe. This article gets several historical facts wrong (see comment of corvus13 above). While I don't actually know, the claim that Eastern Europe never developed any liberal politicial institutions of its own, but had to import them from the West, seems to me a bit questionable (a statement like that needs evidence).
Also, this article makes no mention of Communism, the Cold War and the Iron Curtain, which were important in shaping the modern conception of Western vs. Eastern Europe. (The West was the parts composed by the liberal democracies, the East by the communists – this was just as important a part of the definition of E. Europe to the contemporary mind as questions of geography or medieveal or ancient history.) – SJK
I have totally rewritten the article from the point of view of the current situation. It now needs someone to put the historical meat on it to explain:
1. East v West during the Cold War 2. Earlier manifestations of a divided Europe e.g. Byzantine v Roman Empires etc.
sjc 07:19, 28 October 2001 (UTC)
Concerning Poland and the other reform states this article and the article about Eastern Europe clearly shows a typical American or British point of view of which they expect that everyone has to agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.59.40.20 ( talk) 14:07, 29 January 2003 (UTC)
Minor quibble: is Vatican City really a country? I wouldn't call it a country. Technically speaking, Vatican City is not a state, the Holy See is a state, and Vatican City is merely territory possessed by the Holy See. And many scholars doubt whether the Holy See really is a state at all, since it is questionable whether it meets the legal criteria for statehood contained in the Montevideo convention. – SJK
It is certainly largely autonomous, although it is probably not technically a country. I'll strike it... sjc 07:19, 28 October 2001 (UTC)
This article has gone beyond silly. French Guiana is also part of the EU, shouldn't it also be listed under "Western Europe"? I say we preemptively declare the whole world to be Western Europe and be done with it. :P -- Shallot 10:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Western and eastern europe can have a lot of differnts definitions. Historically, the oldest one is due to the division of the roman empire in 2 parts, one east, one west. The east part will give birth to the byzantine civilisation (based on orthodox religion); will the west part will give birth to catholica civilisation (and later to protestant civilisation) : what since this time we call "western civilisation"
In a very more recent time the meaning of western was changed by the american people in the meaning of "capitalist" and "americanized" countries. In this case you can say that east germany was not wetern while culturally if have been westerner since so much more time than the USA.
I have yet to meet a Polish person who would think of Poland as part of Western Europe. Moreover, how did Slovenia become a part of Western Europe?
So why Greece is a part of Western Europe?? 83.22.33.31 14:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Currently the article says:
From when until World War I? And who thought it "this comprise[d] France, the British Isles and Benelux" ? Philip Baird Shearer 00:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why use the term British Isles? See IONA. – Philip Baird Shearer 00:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I removed the sentence stating that - Estonia is sometimes considered a Nordic Country and may also sometimes be considered Western Europe. I have never seen the country refered to as Western Europe in any reference in either English, German, or French (the languages I speak). Obviously someone on the planet might consider it as such but it is not common enough of a notion to be included here.
-- 84.153.37.201 00:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)Harold
Johan, your arguments are good, but the fact remains this is the English language Wikipedia and I have never come a English texts or reference where Estonia is connected to Western Europe, even through its indirect connections to the Nordic Countries. It seems most logical to me that the article inform about areas that are generally or even occasionally considered parts of Western Europe.. and not just areas that may in their cultural context want to see themselves as western Europe or western European.
Estonia as a former Soviet republic in a northeastern section of Europe is rarely, and I emphasize rarely if ever, mentioned as being a Western European state in the English-speaking world. I have never seen this and for the reason I do not think it is justified to mention the fact the country here. If you have any references to counter my arguments please provide them, otherwise I will continue to stick with my arguments.
--
84.153.6.152 13:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)Harold
LOL! John Calvin's society were all Western Europeans. How is Suisse distant from France? TheUnforgiven 22:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Burgundian Geneva was the capital of Western European Protestantism (minus Anglicanism), which was John Calvin's residence after moving from France. Luther and many of those other Germanic guys dealt with Northern European Protestantism. I think that these Wikipedia articles don't reflect the society of Europe. When I think of Swiss bankers( and chocolates, cheese, clocks, army knives, etc), France or Lombardy (and Belgium) also comes to mind. Granted, Liechtenstein and Austria are Central European but that is because of their history and culture despite the shared terrain with Switzerland. How popular is Austria in American social culture, compared to Switzerland? http://www.ricola.com/ is a common product in America, but what about Austrian products? Weiners are the only things I can think of that are of Austrian origin in America. Again, please explain how Burgundy is Central European? Not trying to be aggressive with you, but the Hundred Years' War and the House of Orange-Nassau were not ever based in Central Europe. We could make Franken/Franconia Central European because of Charlemagne, but Burgundy is Western European. Drang nach Osten, deals more with Central Europe. Tradition tells us these things and also as is remarked, Geneva is a Celtic name. Can we base the regional definitions of Europe upon this?: North West Europe=Celtic...North Central Europe=Germanic...North East Europe=Slavic...South West Europe=Hispanic...South Central Europe=Italic...South East Europe=Hellenic. The Finno-Ugric peoples and Bulgarians don't fit into this regular ideal of popular culture. Here's an example of the way I see it: After William III of Orange took the joint throne with Mary II of England, most American colonies of Western European blood had been continuing their loyalty. After the Frankish House of Hanover came to the fore, colonial rebellions became as common as Jacobitism. Calvinism and Lutheranism don't mix very well. What do you think about what I wrote here? Is there any merit? TheUnforgiven 01:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Yodeling is part of popular culture for Western Europeans and Americans. TheUnforgiven 05:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
"5 of the 6 Nordic countries". What is the sixth? I visited the hyperlink to Nordic countries to find out the answer - only to be told that there are five Nordic countries! - 86.134.47.32 19:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
--- G.
I would think that, historically (pre-1870?), the Elbe could be considered a division between Western and Eastern Europe, with large differences in the organisation of agriculture and land ownership. Further south, the Austrian empire and anything south or east of it should be considered non-WE. Jørgen 20:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am Flamarande (obviously). I found this article and was stunned by it´s content and I plan to correct it throughly. Somehow, I kind off jumped out as I began, but I was 213.22.236.175. Any questions or disputes with the contents of my edits should be presented in this Talkpage so that a agreement can be achieved.
This article presents Germany as a "alpine country" and part of "central europe". I can only protest against this factually wrong presentation of history and culture. Ok, I can understand that until the end of WWII it is somewhat debatable to present Germany as part of the "Western Europe" (alltough I personaly think it would be accurate). But after that conflict? Give me a break, with the onset of the Cold war the western parts occupied by the "western allies", the USA, UK, France joined into the the Federal Republic of Germany. The Iron curtain divided "old" Germany between thew East and the West, but this article fails to acknowledge that the "western part" of Germany was universally considered part of the "West". I mean it was part of Nato, it was and is a parlamentary Democracy, etc. I can only ask: "who wrote this"? Flamarande 00:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed a few NPOV paragraphs, some may be able to be rewritten and used properly for this article, however, I felt in their current form, they should just be deleted instead of being left on the article. Replace them if you want, but please fix them if you do. - Rudykog 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I find it strange to see in the caption of the image at the top "Note that Greece should be included in this map." We either decide that it should be included and we modify the map, or we take that sentence out, right? -- Mihai 01:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Replaced the troublesome map with a better one. Flamarande 17:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The text is contradictory to what is on the image, either remove Slovenia from the map or add it to the text. I don't know if is common to put Slovenia in the western europe. I think is more common to put it in the eastern part, but i'm not sure. -- Seba 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
How could everyone overlook that country? You are right, Slovenia is not commonly considered part of Western Europe, and as soon as I find a better map I will replace the current one. Thanks for your sharp eyes. Flamarande 19:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
ok, i've fixed the map. -- Seba 21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I might be seing it wrong somehow, but Slovenia is still yellow. Flamarande 10:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you haven't refreshed? :o I see it in gray. -- Seba 17:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The entire "Europe carefully divided until the Cold War" section sounds all wrong. It's opinionated, persuasive, biased and uses too many assertations of truth. It isn't encylopedic. Stuff like this shouldn't be in an article:
"To simply simplify it, is dangerous, for there were always exceptions to all rules and even more in the case of history. Despite all that, some lessons can be learned from it."
Wikipedia is not a Publisher of original thought. Also, it seems to have little to do with the topic at hand. Opinions? -- Kinst 01:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I barely know anything about this country.
Don´t tell that to a portuguese. They are so full of themselves and it annoys them if someone says such a thing. You have to read the articles about Portugal. Flamarande 08:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh really??-- viriatus 15:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, it seems that the image that was recently added is under scrutiny. The user who added it (source) has to provide info about its origins (where it came from), or it will be deleted completely. Bloody hell, I liked that image. Flamarande 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
In the top image, Image:Europe-western-countries.png, is there any reason that France + GB + Benelux are in a different shade of yellow than the rest of Western Europe? Deuar 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I want to precise that the narrowded definition of "western Europe" used from the classification of the UN includes the UK and Ireland in northern Europe. So, the map is wrong and should show France, Benelux and Germany but not UK. Anyway this definition is inaccurate and unusefull outside of the UN works and the UN administrative classifications. -- Fabb leb 21:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, we'll start with the fact that the article says "the following nine countries," and then proceeds to list ten countries. That's a red flag right there.
Secondly, I can't imagine the UN would be so sloppy. Italy but not San Marino or the Vatican? Germany but not Denmark? And what the hell happened to Andorra, Spain, and Portugal?
I'm changing the article; I don't know what the U.N. says, so I'm deleting the list outright. Twin Bird 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The user who had added Italy is right. Everybody have alway considered Italy to be in Western Europe; More than this Italy is historically the country of western Europe the most influent it has never had. The UN classifications are completly arbitrary - and are mainly of pure administrative reason but not cultural or geographic.
Excluding Spain and Portugal is aslo excluding two of the most important western European countries of its own land.--
82.224.59.166
19:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous user is continually placing Slovenia in the list of western european countries under the heading
Now I have never seen Slovenia in a list of western european countries. It's just plainly east of the customary dividing line that used to be the "iron curtain". Sure, Slovenia has a much higher GDP per capita than other post-communist countries, but that is not the usual criterion that most people use when referring to "western europe" (perhaps apart from Slovenians? I wouldn't know about that). The usual criterion is 20th century history, and Slovenia shares at least its last 80 years of history with postocommunist countries, not western europe. I would not expect other postcommunist countries to suddenly become "western europe" upon reaching some economic threshold, and I don't see why Slovenia is any different. However, please, if you do have some reasonably authoritative sources which list Slovenia as a western european country, do tell ... Deuar 20:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
While i'm on this topic, Cyprus was on the list for a while as well. It has a relatively high GDP, but so what? It's so far east that calling it western europe is pretty crazy. In fact it's not even in Europe (geographically speaking). Deuar 20:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the paragraph mentioning the quoting of Jacques Chirac:
If someone wishes to re-instate these words, then please try to address the following minor points:
The text I encountered in this section was pretty poor quality containing many weasel words and peacock terms, so I have tried to make it more "encyclopedic". Tell the truth this section appears to be an attempt to "explain the causes of World War II". It is not clear to me at all what its relevance to the concept of Western Europe is. In fact Western Europe was not even mentioned anywhere in that section. I would like to suggest removing this section altogether since I am sure that the causes of WWI and WWII are explained much better in their own articles.
On a slightly different topic - there was an image Image:Centum_Satem_map.png in this section, whose relevance was again completely opaque. If it is actually relevant, could someone please explain before putting it in? Deuar 15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I wrote that section in an small effort to explain that the modern term only began its use since the end of WWII. I didn't think it was that bad, sorry. I think this improved version is quite good and think we should leave as it is.
About the image: USER:Nixer added it, but I fail to see its relevance. Leave it deleted.
Somebody keeps adding Slovenia in some sort of national inferiority complex, I am quite inclined to either request a ban upon the user (dubious because he has a mobile IP) or request a partial protection of this article. Flamarande 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
In reaction to Flamarande's last comment here (just above this). I know edit-conflict can be frustrating but there a better ways to resolve the issue. I am indifferent to the inclusion of Slovenia, but a good discussion here or a request for comment, can solve the issue, while making threats and insulting people won't. I propose we have a decent discussion about the issue! - C mon 18:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Greenland is not part of Western Europe in most "common understandings". Reason: geographically it's not even part of Europe! It is far on the American side of the Atlantic Ocean. While Greenland is closely associated with Western Europe politically via its links to Denmark this does not make it any more part of Europe geographically than e.g. French Guiana or Martinique despite all those places having members of Parliament in France. Another example: Siberia is not in Eastern Europe even though it's part of Russia. Deuar 15:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I just modified the history section to include the pre-20th century history. Although in popular culture it is largely forgotten, the Eastern/Western European distinctions actually go back the Roman Empire and the later schism in the Church. During the 19th and 20th centuries, of course, there was a whole new set of socio-political issues which altered these definitions but, even today, if you look geographically at the what most people consider East and West, the lines still largely follow the divisions in the Empire and in the Church (Greece being a notable exception which has to do with the Renaissance, the Turks, and early 19th century politics). -- Mcorazao 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, the lines of separation are certainly not precisely the same. I just meant this in very broad strokes. -- Mcorazao 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I humbly suggest that the whole paragraph which includes the Clashing civilization by Huntington be revised and seriously improved. The concept of Western Europe commonly includes Eastern Orthodox Greece (widely considered the craddle of Western (European) civilization). Eastern Europe includes Poland, Slovenia, the Czech republic, the thre Baltic countries and other Protestant/Catholic countries. Eastern Europe includes Albania and the Kosovo region who AFAIK are majoritly Muslim. If you compare the maps you while notice that they simply don't agree with each other. The concept of "Western Europe" was widely defined by the Cold War (plus older historical developments) and AFAIK was absolutly not somehow re-defined by Huntington. To be honest his 'Civilization definition along religious lines' simply don't seem aply in the common understanding of Western Europe at all. Flamarande 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And by the way if someone wishes to include Huntingtons view (which he himself seesm to have recanted - at least according to his article) then please provide a proper source. As for the question why this article should present Huntingtons view about the concept "Western Europe" if his views do not define it at all I will leave for wiser minds to pounder. Flamarande 20:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Please let's be a little more neutral in this issues. It's is a bit obvious:
Nazi Germany invaded, conquered, and occupied many Eastern European countries. The occupation was most cases quite brutal. Local Jews were sent to the concentration camps, lot's of ppl were enslaved; forced to work in German factories who produced war material. Many partisans were shoot (by the way that wasn't ilegal at all, but brutal nonetheless). Many of Eastern POW's (like the Poles) were not trated as mandated by the Geneva convention. Lot's of ppl simply starved to death. ETC
The Russian/Soviet armies eventually defeated the German Wehrmacht and forced them to retreat. On their retreat the Germans destroyed, and burned lot's of cities to the ground (like Warsaw). The Russian/Soviets themselves advanced and liberated many eastern countries. IF you don't like that verb, then I humbly suggest that you find a better one which we can use for both allied forces (Soviet and Western allies). I don't deny that Communist regimes were later forced upon these countries (by order of Stalin and through the threath of Soviet arms). But to boast that the Western allies 'liberated' while the Soviets 'occupied/conquered' (whatever) countries who had been conquered and brutally ocupied by the Germans is quite controversial. I am not excusing what happened afterwards (the later communist regimes, the secret police, the surpression of many liberties) but let's keep it a little neutral, OK? Flamarande 18:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am satisfied that you (Klamber) finaly dignify yourself to presenting your POV on the talkpage. Let me see if I understand you correctly: you don't like the use of the verb liberate apllied to the Soviet/Russian army? Well I don't like it either, but to keep the neutrality the same verb should be used both for the Soviet/Russians and the Western allies. To say that one (Soviet Union) conquered while the other one (Western allies) liberated is certainly not being neutral at all. No question about the advantages of democracy in WE "allowed" by the victorous Western allies, while EE had communist regimes imposed upon them. But that happenend after the liberation. And if you took care to notice the writting of: "liberated", the verb is between Quotation marks ( " ) showing the irony of the statement. As in: They "liberated" but their liberation wasn't true liberty.
If you are a Finn (whose family suffered during WWII?) then I can understand somewhat your POV. But don't forget that Finland (the democratic state) choose to fight at the side of Nazi Germany and Hitler. They choose to fight alongside the same army and nation that was commiting the Holocaust, mass shootings of civilians, brutal invasion of the Soviet Union, etc. Of course that the (later) annexed parts of Finland were not somehow liberated by the Russians; these territories were clearly conquered (I truly hope this is what you are so mad about). I certainly agree that this particular issue can (and should) be claryfied. But don't let your feelings interfere with a accurate historical understanding: the goverment of the Soviet Union was not 'a terrorist regime' (unless you consider the Partisan (military)s, especially Soviet partisans as terrorists, and then I must inform you that this is not the common/main/historical view). Someone may describe it as a dictatorship; but to be more accurate it was a Socialist republic.
This issue could have been presented in reasonable fashion a long time in the talkpage, instead of simply making full-scale reverts. That is the purpose of the Talkpages: someone sees a big mistake and he improves it. Someone else reverts it because of valid reasons. Both present their POV's and reasoning in the talkpage, trying to agree to later improve it in a rational manner.
And besides all that please don't use Huntington's view as an excuse to revert. He somehow choose to re-define the whole concept of civilization, presenting 'several religious blocs' as rival civilizations while the commony accepted concept of Western Europe was clearly ignored. Western Europe is not merely the catholic and protestant countries in Europe, it is more (includes Greece) and also less (does not include Poland, etc) (see point above). Flamarande 20:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I take the following statement as an insult: "(rv (exlain or provide alternative to Huntington, do not delete; & Wikipedia is not a neo-Nazi / "Stalin liberated Europe" type of forum) Cheers)". That phrase clearly insinuates that 1st)I am a Neo-nazi or at least am defending such ideas inside of Wikipedia. 2nd)That I am a communist (more accuratly a Stalinist) or at least defending such ideas inside Wikipedia. On the whole it implies that I am not trying to truthfully improve this article and rather am attemptingt to 'twist' the article somehow; and that idea is ABSOLUTLY false. Flamarande 20:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an example of Soviet "liberation". Montessquieu ( talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think a safe and accyrate way to determine western from eastern europe is by using the isogloss theory and the countries that make part of the Centum group. The Centum countries thus the european countries that are inhabited by people speaking Greek, west Romance, Germanic or Celtic languages were always considered to consist the Western Europe with the rest of european countries such as Russia, Serbia, Croatia, Romania always formed eastern europe. The latest map that you demonstrate simply demonstrates this. If you redirect to Centum group you will see hoe this map always overlap with almost the exact boundaries of the west —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There is an archipelago. Such geographical features have always a name. AFAIK almost everywhere this particular archipelago is called the "British Isles". This name is not apreciated in the Republic of Ireland because they feel that this name implies that all the islands are British (obviously they aren't). I also can understand this reasoning (i.e. the feelings of the Irish). But nevertheless the name continues to be used. As it continues to be used, it is accurate. This article (and Wikipedia in general) uses accurate terms. If anyone is able to provide another name that is accurate and widely used I will be more than happy to improve the article (to replace the name). This is the same problem with the "The Sea of Japan". Flamarande 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Heres an alternative then Irish Isles, why not write that? And i might as well change the name of Europe to greater germany because it is in the centre of europe and germany took over most of it and i can't think of a better alternative. Another thing, PartyPoker the international gaming website does not use the term british isles it uses the term UK and Ireland it obviously knows the craic and know how to treat people in a curtious and respectful way.
is out of date by 60 years the term british isles is also outdated. I suppose you would still use the term wireless instead of radio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saoirsegodeohf ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You could consider " British Isles ( IONA)" as a compromise and explanation all in one go. (Just passing through from the RfC page) -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This article starts off with a long list of sweeping generalisations. No attempt is made to source weasel terms like "In common perception", "commonly associated". In fact, the whole introduction sounds not a little bit like original research. It's claimed that Western Europe as defined in the article is different from Eastern Europe by "differences of culture, politics and economis". According to whom? It seems like the ideas of some editor with a very vague idea of Europe who doesn't even try to explain his ideas.
Culture Does anybody really want to claim that
Greece is culturally closer to
Norway and the
UK than to
Bulgaria and
Serbia? There are many cultural boundaries (Religion, history, language groups etc.) in Europe, virtually none of which conforms to the division proposed here. Perhaps somebody would care to explain which cultural traits that unite this so called "Eastern" Europe on one side and "Western" Europe on the other?
Politics That would have been true twenty years ago but certainly not today. Both the so called "Eastern" and "Western" Europe are both home to some very well-functioning democraties and to some less well-functioning. Twenty years ago, this would have been a question between democraties and dictatorship but what political differences are there now?
Economics This is perhaps the funniest of them all and once again reveal a severe lack of insight on behalf of the author(s). Their proposed "Eastern" Europe is home both to the most state-controlled and the most liberal economies in Europe. Neither the proposed "Western" or "Eastern" Europe have any common economic system, far from it.
Then we get even more original research, claiming that "Western Europe" is "commonly associated" with liberal democracies. I doubt anyone would call
Greece a very liberal democracy while
Slovenia and
Estonia well could be called so. And "
Capitalism"?? Give me a break, most states in the so called Eastern Europe are more capitalistic than countries such as Sweden, Norway or Finland. And then we get the funny idea that "Western Europe" is associated with the "
European Union". Funny, as the "western" countries of
Norway,
Iceland and
Switzerland aren't in the union while most "Eastern" countries are. All in all, the whole introduction is just a long orgy of original research and no actual knowledge. The real article starts with the definition by the
UN, a definition that is very different from the OR proposed in the introduction, and also much more accurate. Unless some very authorotative sources are provided instead of the present OR introduction, the whole introduction should be deleted. The articles on
Northern Europe,
Central Europe and
Southern Europe conform both to each other and to the UN definitions. As far as I remembered
Western Europe and
Eastern Europe also used to conform to that untill the present introductions with all their original research and lack of knowledge were added. They should be removed swiftly for many reasons, not least the poor quality, the lack of conformity with other articles and especially the fact that it's all opinions and original research.
JdeJ
14:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some editors to this article seem to be unaware of the difference between verifiable fact and personal opinions. The aim of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia and part of that aim is to meet some common standards. The version of this article that some editors want to use fail to meet a considerable number of these standards. Let me mention a few of the problems
Now, it would make much more sense to start off with the UN definition, as that version is building on a source. The section on the Cold War is already the longest in the article even without the OR-tainted introduction. That introduction is better left out as it's not encyclopedic, is not citing any sources, is self-contradictory and, in short, is nothing but the personal opinions of some Wikipedia editors. JdeJ 15:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The raticle currently states that the concept of central europe stems from a 1915 book by Friedrich Naumann. I don't know whether this is true for the English language, but in Germany, the concept of Mitteleuropa was already around long before WWI: encyclopedia entry from 1891. I think the term "central powers" also precedes that Friedrich Naumann book a bit, so I fail to see an obvious connection. Yaan ( talk) 00:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The introductory map (UN Statistic Division) suggests that it's an official UN's division of Europe's regions. According to the introduction to the "Standard country or area codes and geographical regions for statistical use" section, "The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations". What is more, the UN do not define Eastern Europe in the presented way - compare the map of Central and Eastern Europe (UN Cartographic Division) or UNESCO official information sources on education.
Central Europe does exist in the UN system, the "traditional" division of Europe into four regions is just for statistical use - it was rational at the moment of its creation as "Eastern Europe" as presented on the map was one economic bloc at that time. I propose to a) remove the UN map b) change the map order - put CIA World Factbook map first and clearly indicate that the UN map is just for statistical use and does not imply any assumption regarding political/other affiliation of countries by the UN. Regards, Montessquieu ( talk) 22:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It is the same for CIA factbook, it is just an arbitrary grouping among many others. Why not including the classification made by the international comminty for miss universe? or others too? CIA is not the most objective grouping, since it is linked with US geopolitical point of views, at least the UN one is more international.
82.224.59.166 (
talk)
11:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest placing present times section in the beginning of the article. many readers don't want to go through all the historical nuances, and would benefit from getting a contemporary definition in the first place. Objections? Pundit| utter 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This section repeats the "Cold War" section with some idiotic modifications. Eastern Europe is defined as the countries east from the Iron Curtain while Western Europe is defined as the rest ("Most joined NATO and/or the European Community or its rival, the European Free Trade Association"). At first, this "divided Europe" ceased to exist about 20 years ago with the fall of the Communism. The criteria used in the "Western Europe" section apply to some countries classified as Eastern Europe (EU & NATO). Finally, some "Western" countries have little in common with the West (e.g. Greece is culturally Eastern, while the Czech Republic - Western). What's more, Central Europe has to be taken into account. And some sources would be useful... Montessquieu ( talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Montessquieu ( talk) 15:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
"e.g. Greece is culturally Eastern, while the Czech Republic - Western."
I can assure you technically speaking Greece, Italy and Spain are their own subgroup unlike Northern Europeans while Czech Republic is closer to the baltic and former yugoslavian states. The whole "culturally" thing doesnt make any sense 85.73.93.244 ( talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
"while Czech Republic is closer to the baltic and former yugoslavian states" I hope you're joking. Nither have we (I'm from the Czech republic) ever formed a country with the yugoslavians or baltics, nor are we in any way related (based on research, over 40% of our genes are of the german branch - makes sense - we formed a country with them (or the austrians) for almost 300 years...).
The total population for (what's commonly accepted as) Western Europe would be nice to have, wouldn't it? Adding together the populations of the separate countries doesn't violate WP:ORIG. 84.202.252.37 ( talk) 06:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The table appears to be missing Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City—according to the National Geographic Society. Hayden120 ( talk) 09:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This article says: Up to World War I, "Western Europe" was thought to comprise France, the British Isles and Benelux. These countries represented the democratic victors of both world wars
Huh???
Can you please specify what countries were considered in this region during WW2, with NATO and Iron Curtain
Why is Belgium missing from the table in "Population of Western Europe"???
86.173.102.81 (
talk)
23:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Why would countries that are in Central Europe such as Germany, be considered part of Western Europe? It makes it very confusing.
I think most people would really be annoyed if Germany started another WW. If that were to happen the big guns of the world might just wipe Germany off the face of the Earth. If I were Germany I wouldn't try to take over the world again.
Hmm, that is the most obvious and dummest statement I have seen in a long time. First of all Germany started the WWII no doubts about it, but it did not start WWI all the european countries are guilty of that. The statement (above) is entirly correct but soo obvious. Everybody knows that, especially the Germans. I assure that they have lost any ambitions to conquer the world through military means. They prefer to conquer the world by bying the other countries, its cheaper and assured. In fact, no country has the power to conquer he world, even the allmighty USA. You just have to love the concept of assured mutual nuclear destruction, the great reason for peace. Flamarande 08:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Spain is part of Western Europe, and it was conquered by the Muslims.
Parts of Italy were part of the Eastern Roman Empire, as well.
corvus13
Actually, neither 'Spain' nor 'Italy' existed at the time. Probably the crucial difference was between those areas where the writ of the Roman pontificate ran versus those where it did not. This was to remain crucial; the Reformation was a reaction against the RC church and made little or no headway in Eastern Orthodox areas, etc. Greece is a difficult case: the cradle of Western civilization was not in the Western Empire. Filiocht 11:51, 27 January 2005 (UTC)
This article says:
Maybe some Poles might think of Poland as being part of Western Europe, but I think most people would say it is part of Central or Eastern Europe. This article gets several historical facts wrong (see comment of corvus13 above). While I don't actually know, the claim that Eastern Europe never developed any liberal politicial institutions of its own, but had to import them from the West, seems to me a bit questionable (a statement like that needs evidence).
Also, this article makes no mention of Communism, the Cold War and the Iron Curtain, which were important in shaping the modern conception of Western vs. Eastern Europe. (The West was the parts composed by the liberal democracies, the East by the communists – this was just as important a part of the definition of E. Europe to the contemporary mind as questions of geography or medieveal or ancient history.) – SJK
I have totally rewritten the article from the point of view of the current situation. It now needs someone to put the historical meat on it to explain:
1. East v West during the Cold War 2. Earlier manifestations of a divided Europe e.g. Byzantine v Roman Empires etc.
sjc 07:19, 28 October 2001 (UTC)
Concerning Poland and the other reform states this article and the article about Eastern Europe clearly shows a typical American or British point of view of which they expect that everyone has to agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.59.40.20 ( talk) 14:07, 29 January 2003 (UTC)
Minor quibble: is Vatican City really a country? I wouldn't call it a country. Technically speaking, Vatican City is not a state, the Holy See is a state, and Vatican City is merely territory possessed by the Holy See. And many scholars doubt whether the Holy See really is a state at all, since it is questionable whether it meets the legal criteria for statehood contained in the Montevideo convention. – SJK
It is certainly largely autonomous, although it is probably not technically a country. I'll strike it... sjc 07:19, 28 October 2001 (UTC)
This article has gone beyond silly. French Guiana is also part of the EU, shouldn't it also be listed under "Western Europe"? I say we preemptively declare the whole world to be Western Europe and be done with it. :P -- Shallot 10:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Western and eastern europe can have a lot of differnts definitions. Historically, the oldest one is due to the division of the roman empire in 2 parts, one east, one west. The east part will give birth to the byzantine civilisation (based on orthodox religion); will the west part will give birth to catholica civilisation (and later to protestant civilisation) : what since this time we call "western civilisation"
In a very more recent time the meaning of western was changed by the american people in the meaning of "capitalist" and "americanized" countries. In this case you can say that east germany was not wetern while culturally if have been westerner since so much more time than the USA.
I have yet to meet a Polish person who would think of Poland as part of Western Europe. Moreover, how did Slovenia become a part of Western Europe?
So why Greece is a part of Western Europe?? 83.22.33.31 14:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Currently the article says:
From when until World War I? And who thought it "this comprise[d] France, the British Isles and Benelux" ? Philip Baird Shearer 00:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why use the term British Isles? See IONA. – Philip Baird Shearer 00:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I removed the sentence stating that - Estonia is sometimes considered a Nordic Country and may also sometimes be considered Western Europe. I have never seen the country refered to as Western Europe in any reference in either English, German, or French (the languages I speak). Obviously someone on the planet might consider it as such but it is not common enough of a notion to be included here.
-- 84.153.37.201 00:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)Harold
Johan, your arguments are good, but the fact remains this is the English language Wikipedia and I have never come a English texts or reference where Estonia is connected to Western Europe, even through its indirect connections to the Nordic Countries. It seems most logical to me that the article inform about areas that are generally or even occasionally considered parts of Western Europe.. and not just areas that may in their cultural context want to see themselves as western Europe or western European.
Estonia as a former Soviet republic in a northeastern section of Europe is rarely, and I emphasize rarely if ever, mentioned as being a Western European state in the English-speaking world. I have never seen this and for the reason I do not think it is justified to mention the fact the country here. If you have any references to counter my arguments please provide them, otherwise I will continue to stick with my arguments.
--
84.153.6.152 13:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)Harold
LOL! John Calvin's society were all Western Europeans. How is Suisse distant from France? TheUnforgiven 22:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Burgundian Geneva was the capital of Western European Protestantism (minus Anglicanism), which was John Calvin's residence after moving from France. Luther and many of those other Germanic guys dealt with Northern European Protestantism. I think that these Wikipedia articles don't reflect the society of Europe. When I think of Swiss bankers( and chocolates, cheese, clocks, army knives, etc), France or Lombardy (and Belgium) also comes to mind. Granted, Liechtenstein and Austria are Central European but that is because of their history and culture despite the shared terrain with Switzerland. How popular is Austria in American social culture, compared to Switzerland? http://www.ricola.com/ is a common product in America, but what about Austrian products? Weiners are the only things I can think of that are of Austrian origin in America. Again, please explain how Burgundy is Central European? Not trying to be aggressive with you, but the Hundred Years' War and the House of Orange-Nassau were not ever based in Central Europe. We could make Franken/Franconia Central European because of Charlemagne, but Burgundy is Western European. Drang nach Osten, deals more with Central Europe. Tradition tells us these things and also as is remarked, Geneva is a Celtic name. Can we base the regional definitions of Europe upon this?: North West Europe=Celtic...North Central Europe=Germanic...North East Europe=Slavic...South West Europe=Hispanic...South Central Europe=Italic...South East Europe=Hellenic. The Finno-Ugric peoples and Bulgarians don't fit into this regular ideal of popular culture. Here's an example of the way I see it: After William III of Orange took the joint throne with Mary II of England, most American colonies of Western European blood had been continuing their loyalty. After the Frankish House of Hanover came to the fore, colonial rebellions became as common as Jacobitism. Calvinism and Lutheranism don't mix very well. What do you think about what I wrote here? Is there any merit? TheUnforgiven 01:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Yodeling is part of popular culture for Western Europeans and Americans. TheUnforgiven 05:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
"5 of the 6 Nordic countries". What is the sixth? I visited the hyperlink to Nordic countries to find out the answer - only to be told that there are five Nordic countries! - 86.134.47.32 19:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
--- G.
I would think that, historically (pre-1870?), the Elbe could be considered a division between Western and Eastern Europe, with large differences in the organisation of agriculture and land ownership. Further south, the Austrian empire and anything south or east of it should be considered non-WE. Jørgen 20:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am Flamarande (obviously). I found this article and was stunned by it´s content and I plan to correct it throughly. Somehow, I kind off jumped out as I began, but I was 213.22.236.175. Any questions or disputes with the contents of my edits should be presented in this Talkpage so that a agreement can be achieved.
This article presents Germany as a "alpine country" and part of "central europe". I can only protest against this factually wrong presentation of history and culture. Ok, I can understand that until the end of WWII it is somewhat debatable to present Germany as part of the "Western Europe" (alltough I personaly think it would be accurate). But after that conflict? Give me a break, with the onset of the Cold war the western parts occupied by the "western allies", the USA, UK, France joined into the the Federal Republic of Germany. The Iron curtain divided "old" Germany between thew East and the West, but this article fails to acknowledge that the "western part" of Germany was universally considered part of the "West". I mean it was part of Nato, it was and is a parlamentary Democracy, etc. I can only ask: "who wrote this"? Flamarande 00:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed a few NPOV paragraphs, some may be able to be rewritten and used properly for this article, however, I felt in their current form, they should just be deleted instead of being left on the article. Replace them if you want, but please fix them if you do. - Rudykog 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I find it strange to see in the caption of the image at the top "Note that Greece should be included in this map." We either decide that it should be included and we modify the map, or we take that sentence out, right? -- Mihai 01:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Replaced the troublesome map with a better one. Flamarande 17:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The text is contradictory to what is on the image, either remove Slovenia from the map or add it to the text. I don't know if is common to put Slovenia in the western europe. I think is more common to put it in the eastern part, but i'm not sure. -- Seba 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
How could everyone overlook that country? You are right, Slovenia is not commonly considered part of Western Europe, and as soon as I find a better map I will replace the current one. Thanks for your sharp eyes. Flamarande 19:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
ok, i've fixed the map. -- Seba 21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I might be seing it wrong somehow, but Slovenia is still yellow. Flamarande 10:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you haven't refreshed? :o I see it in gray. -- Seba 17:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The entire "Europe carefully divided until the Cold War" section sounds all wrong. It's opinionated, persuasive, biased and uses too many assertations of truth. It isn't encylopedic. Stuff like this shouldn't be in an article:
"To simply simplify it, is dangerous, for there were always exceptions to all rules and even more in the case of history. Despite all that, some lessons can be learned from it."
Wikipedia is not a Publisher of original thought. Also, it seems to have little to do with the topic at hand. Opinions? -- Kinst 01:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I barely know anything about this country.
Don´t tell that to a portuguese. They are so full of themselves and it annoys them if someone says such a thing. You have to read the articles about Portugal. Flamarande 08:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh really??-- viriatus 15:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, it seems that the image that was recently added is under scrutiny. The user who added it (source) has to provide info about its origins (where it came from), or it will be deleted completely. Bloody hell, I liked that image. Flamarande 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
In the top image, Image:Europe-western-countries.png, is there any reason that France + GB + Benelux are in a different shade of yellow than the rest of Western Europe? Deuar 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I want to precise that the narrowded definition of "western Europe" used from the classification of the UN includes the UK and Ireland in northern Europe. So, the map is wrong and should show France, Benelux and Germany but not UK. Anyway this definition is inaccurate and unusefull outside of the UN works and the UN administrative classifications. -- Fabb leb 21:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, we'll start with the fact that the article says "the following nine countries," and then proceeds to list ten countries. That's a red flag right there.
Secondly, I can't imagine the UN would be so sloppy. Italy but not San Marino or the Vatican? Germany but not Denmark? And what the hell happened to Andorra, Spain, and Portugal?
I'm changing the article; I don't know what the U.N. says, so I'm deleting the list outright. Twin Bird 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The user who had added Italy is right. Everybody have alway considered Italy to be in Western Europe; More than this Italy is historically the country of western Europe the most influent it has never had. The UN classifications are completly arbitrary - and are mainly of pure administrative reason but not cultural or geographic.
Excluding Spain and Portugal is aslo excluding two of the most important western European countries of its own land.--
82.224.59.166
19:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous user is continually placing Slovenia in the list of western european countries under the heading
Now I have never seen Slovenia in a list of western european countries. It's just plainly east of the customary dividing line that used to be the "iron curtain". Sure, Slovenia has a much higher GDP per capita than other post-communist countries, but that is not the usual criterion that most people use when referring to "western europe" (perhaps apart from Slovenians? I wouldn't know about that). The usual criterion is 20th century history, and Slovenia shares at least its last 80 years of history with postocommunist countries, not western europe. I would not expect other postcommunist countries to suddenly become "western europe" upon reaching some economic threshold, and I don't see why Slovenia is any different. However, please, if you do have some reasonably authoritative sources which list Slovenia as a western european country, do tell ... Deuar 20:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
While i'm on this topic, Cyprus was on the list for a while as well. It has a relatively high GDP, but so what? It's so far east that calling it western europe is pretty crazy. In fact it's not even in Europe (geographically speaking). Deuar 20:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the paragraph mentioning the quoting of Jacques Chirac:
If someone wishes to re-instate these words, then please try to address the following minor points:
The text I encountered in this section was pretty poor quality containing many weasel words and peacock terms, so I have tried to make it more "encyclopedic". Tell the truth this section appears to be an attempt to "explain the causes of World War II". It is not clear to me at all what its relevance to the concept of Western Europe is. In fact Western Europe was not even mentioned anywhere in that section. I would like to suggest removing this section altogether since I am sure that the causes of WWI and WWII are explained much better in their own articles.
On a slightly different topic - there was an image Image:Centum_Satem_map.png in this section, whose relevance was again completely opaque. If it is actually relevant, could someone please explain before putting it in? Deuar 15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I wrote that section in an small effort to explain that the modern term only began its use since the end of WWII. I didn't think it was that bad, sorry. I think this improved version is quite good and think we should leave as it is.
About the image: USER:Nixer added it, but I fail to see its relevance. Leave it deleted.
Somebody keeps adding Slovenia in some sort of national inferiority complex, I am quite inclined to either request a ban upon the user (dubious because he has a mobile IP) or request a partial protection of this article. Flamarande 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
In reaction to Flamarande's last comment here (just above this). I know edit-conflict can be frustrating but there a better ways to resolve the issue. I am indifferent to the inclusion of Slovenia, but a good discussion here or a request for comment, can solve the issue, while making threats and insulting people won't. I propose we have a decent discussion about the issue! - C mon 18:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Greenland is not part of Western Europe in most "common understandings". Reason: geographically it's not even part of Europe! It is far on the American side of the Atlantic Ocean. While Greenland is closely associated with Western Europe politically via its links to Denmark this does not make it any more part of Europe geographically than e.g. French Guiana or Martinique despite all those places having members of Parliament in France. Another example: Siberia is not in Eastern Europe even though it's part of Russia. Deuar 15:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I just modified the history section to include the pre-20th century history. Although in popular culture it is largely forgotten, the Eastern/Western European distinctions actually go back the Roman Empire and the later schism in the Church. During the 19th and 20th centuries, of course, there was a whole new set of socio-political issues which altered these definitions but, even today, if you look geographically at the what most people consider East and West, the lines still largely follow the divisions in the Empire and in the Church (Greece being a notable exception which has to do with the Renaissance, the Turks, and early 19th century politics). -- Mcorazao 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, the lines of separation are certainly not precisely the same. I just meant this in very broad strokes. -- Mcorazao 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I humbly suggest that the whole paragraph which includes the Clashing civilization by Huntington be revised and seriously improved. The concept of Western Europe commonly includes Eastern Orthodox Greece (widely considered the craddle of Western (European) civilization). Eastern Europe includes Poland, Slovenia, the Czech republic, the thre Baltic countries and other Protestant/Catholic countries. Eastern Europe includes Albania and the Kosovo region who AFAIK are majoritly Muslim. If you compare the maps you while notice that they simply don't agree with each other. The concept of "Western Europe" was widely defined by the Cold War (plus older historical developments) and AFAIK was absolutly not somehow re-defined by Huntington. To be honest his 'Civilization definition along religious lines' simply don't seem aply in the common understanding of Western Europe at all. Flamarande 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And by the way if someone wishes to include Huntingtons view (which he himself seesm to have recanted - at least according to his article) then please provide a proper source. As for the question why this article should present Huntingtons view about the concept "Western Europe" if his views do not define it at all I will leave for wiser minds to pounder. Flamarande 20:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Please let's be a little more neutral in this issues. It's is a bit obvious:
Nazi Germany invaded, conquered, and occupied many Eastern European countries. The occupation was most cases quite brutal. Local Jews were sent to the concentration camps, lot's of ppl were enslaved; forced to work in German factories who produced war material. Many partisans were shoot (by the way that wasn't ilegal at all, but brutal nonetheless). Many of Eastern POW's (like the Poles) were not trated as mandated by the Geneva convention. Lot's of ppl simply starved to death. ETC
The Russian/Soviet armies eventually defeated the German Wehrmacht and forced them to retreat. On their retreat the Germans destroyed, and burned lot's of cities to the ground (like Warsaw). The Russian/Soviets themselves advanced and liberated many eastern countries. IF you don't like that verb, then I humbly suggest that you find a better one which we can use for both allied forces (Soviet and Western allies). I don't deny that Communist regimes were later forced upon these countries (by order of Stalin and through the threath of Soviet arms). But to boast that the Western allies 'liberated' while the Soviets 'occupied/conquered' (whatever) countries who had been conquered and brutally ocupied by the Germans is quite controversial. I am not excusing what happened afterwards (the later communist regimes, the secret police, the surpression of many liberties) but let's keep it a little neutral, OK? Flamarande 18:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am satisfied that you (Klamber) finaly dignify yourself to presenting your POV on the talkpage. Let me see if I understand you correctly: you don't like the use of the verb liberate apllied to the Soviet/Russian army? Well I don't like it either, but to keep the neutrality the same verb should be used both for the Soviet/Russians and the Western allies. To say that one (Soviet Union) conquered while the other one (Western allies) liberated is certainly not being neutral at all. No question about the advantages of democracy in WE "allowed" by the victorous Western allies, while EE had communist regimes imposed upon them. But that happenend after the liberation. And if you took care to notice the writting of: "liberated", the verb is between Quotation marks ( " ) showing the irony of the statement. As in: They "liberated" but their liberation wasn't true liberty.
If you are a Finn (whose family suffered during WWII?) then I can understand somewhat your POV. But don't forget that Finland (the democratic state) choose to fight at the side of Nazi Germany and Hitler. They choose to fight alongside the same army and nation that was commiting the Holocaust, mass shootings of civilians, brutal invasion of the Soviet Union, etc. Of course that the (later) annexed parts of Finland were not somehow liberated by the Russians; these territories were clearly conquered (I truly hope this is what you are so mad about). I certainly agree that this particular issue can (and should) be claryfied. But don't let your feelings interfere with a accurate historical understanding: the goverment of the Soviet Union was not 'a terrorist regime' (unless you consider the Partisan (military)s, especially Soviet partisans as terrorists, and then I must inform you that this is not the common/main/historical view). Someone may describe it as a dictatorship; but to be more accurate it was a Socialist republic.
This issue could have been presented in reasonable fashion a long time in the talkpage, instead of simply making full-scale reverts. That is the purpose of the Talkpages: someone sees a big mistake and he improves it. Someone else reverts it because of valid reasons. Both present their POV's and reasoning in the talkpage, trying to agree to later improve it in a rational manner.
And besides all that please don't use Huntington's view as an excuse to revert. He somehow choose to re-define the whole concept of civilization, presenting 'several religious blocs' as rival civilizations while the commony accepted concept of Western Europe was clearly ignored. Western Europe is not merely the catholic and protestant countries in Europe, it is more (includes Greece) and also less (does not include Poland, etc) (see point above). Flamarande 20:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I take the following statement as an insult: "(rv (exlain or provide alternative to Huntington, do not delete; & Wikipedia is not a neo-Nazi / "Stalin liberated Europe" type of forum) Cheers)". That phrase clearly insinuates that 1st)I am a Neo-nazi or at least am defending such ideas inside of Wikipedia. 2nd)That I am a communist (more accuratly a Stalinist) or at least defending such ideas inside Wikipedia. On the whole it implies that I am not trying to truthfully improve this article and rather am attemptingt to 'twist' the article somehow; and that idea is ABSOLUTLY false. Flamarande 20:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an example of Soviet "liberation". Montessquieu ( talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think a safe and accyrate way to determine western from eastern europe is by using the isogloss theory and the countries that make part of the Centum group. The Centum countries thus the european countries that are inhabited by people speaking Greek, west Romance, Germanic or Celtic languages were always considered to consist the Western Europe with the rest of european countries such as Russia, Serbia, Croatia, Romania always formed eastern europe. The latest map that you demonstrate simply demonstrates this. If you redirect to Centum group you will see hoe this map always overlap with almost the exact boundaries of the west —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There is an archipelago. Such geographical features have always a name. AFAIK almost everywhere this particular archipelago is called the "British Isles". This name is not apreciated in the Republic of Ireland because they feel that this name implies that all the islands are British (obviously they aren't). I also can understand this reasoning (i.e. the feelings of the Irish). But nevertheless the name continues to be used. As it continues to be used, it is accurate. This article (and Wikipedia in general) uses accurate terms. If anyone is able to provide another name that is accurate and widely used I will be more than happy to improve the article (to replace the name). This is the same problem with the "The Sea of Japan". Flamarande 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Heres an alternative then Irish Isles, why not write that? And i might as well change the name of Europe to greater germany because it is in the centre of europe and germany took over most of it and i can't think of a better alternative. Another thing, PartyPoker the international gaming website does not use the term british isles it uses the term UK and Ireland it obviously knows the craic and know how to treat people in a curtious and respectful way.
is out of date by 60 years the term british isles is also outdated. I suppose you would still use the term wireless instead of radio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saoirsegodeohf ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You could consider " British Isles ( IONA)" as a compromise and explanation all in one go. (Just passing through from the RfC page) -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This article starts off with a long list of sweeping generalisations. No attempt is made to source weasel terms like "In common perception", "commonly associated". In fact, the whole introduction sounds not a little bit like original research. It's claimed that Western Europe as defined in the article is different from Eastern Europe by "differences of culture, politics and economis". According to whom? It seems like the ideas of some editor with a very vague idea of Europe who doesn't even try to explain his ideas.
Culture Does anybody really want to claim that
Greece is culturally closer to
Norway and the
UK than to
Bulgaria and
Serbia? There are many cultural boundaries (Religion, history, language groups etc.) in Europe, virtually none of which conforms to the division proposed here. Perhaps somebody would care to explain which cultural traits that unite this so called "Eastern" Europe on one side and "Western" Europe on the other?
Politics That would have been true twenty years ago but certainly not today. Both the so called "Eastern" and "Western" Europe are both home to some very well-functioning democraties and to some less well-functioning. Twenty years ago, this would have been a question between democraties and dictatorship but what political differences are there now?
Economics This is perhaps the funniest of them all and once again reveal a severe lack of insight on behalf of the author(s). Their proposed "Eastern" Europe is home both to the most state-controlled and the most liberal economies in Europe. Neither the proposed "Western" or "Eastern" Europe have any common economic system, far from it.
Then we get even more original research, claiming that "Western Europe" is "commonly associated" with liberal democracies. I doubt anyone would call
Greece a very liberal democracy while
Slovenia and
Estonia well could be called so. And "
Capitalism"?? Give me a break, most states in the so called Eastern Europe are more capitalistic than countries such as Sweden, Norway or Finland. And then we get the funny idea that "Western Europe" is associated with the "
European Union". Funny, as the "western" countries of
Norway,
Iceland and
Switzerland aren't in the union while most "Eastern" countries are. All in all, the whole introduction is just a long orgy of original research and no actual knowledge. The real article starts with the definition by the
UN, a definition that is very different from the OR proposed in the introduction, and also much more accurate. Unless some very authorotative sources are provided instead of the present OR introduction, the whole introduction should be deleted. The articles on
Northern Europe,
Central Europe and
Southern Europe conform both to each other and to the UN definitions. As far as I remembered
Western Europe and
Eastern Europe also used to conform to that untill the present introductions with all their original research and lack of knowledge were added. They should be removed swiftly for many reasons, not least the poor quality, the lack of conformity with other articles and especially the fact that it's all opinions and original research.
JdeJ
14:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some editors to this article seem to be unaware of the difference between verifiable fact and personal opinions. The aim of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia and part of that aim is to meet some common standards. The version of this article that some editors want to use fail to meet a considerable number of these standards. Let me mention a few of the problems
Now, it would make much more sense to start off with the UN definition, as that version is building on a source. The section on the Cold War is already the longest in the article even without the OR-tainted introduction. That introduction is better left out as it's not encyclopedic, is not citing any sources, is self-contradictory and, in short, is nothing but the personal opinions of some Wikipedia editors. JdeJ 15:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The raticle currently states that the concept of central europe stems from a 1915 book by Friedrich Naumann. I don't know whether this is true for the English language, but in Germany, the concept of Mitteleuropa was already around long before WWI: encyclopedia entry from 1891. I think the term "central powers" also precedes that Friedrich Naumann book a bit, so I fail to see an obvious connection. Yaan ( talk) 00:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The introductory map (UN Statistic Division) suggests that it's an official UN's division of Europe's regions. According to the introduction to the "Standard country or area codes and geographical regions for statistical use" section, "The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations". What is more, the UN do not define Eastern Europe in the presented way - compare the map of Central and Eastern Europe (UN Cartographic Division) or UNESCO official information sources on education.
Central Europe does exist in the UN system, the "traditional" division of Europe into four regions is just for statistical use - it was rational at the moment of its creation as "Eastern Europe" as presented on the map was one economic bloc at that time. I propose to a) remove the UN map b) change the map order - put CIA World Factbook map first and clearly indicate that the UN map is just for statistical use and does not imply any assumption regarding political/other affiliation of countries by the UN. Regards, Montessquieu ( talk) 22:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It is the same for CIA factbook, it is just an arbitrary grouping among many others. Why not including the classification made by the international comminty for miss universe? or others too? CIA is not the most objective grouping, since it is linked with US geopolitical point of views, at least the UN one is more international.
82.224.59.166 (
talk)
11:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest placing present times section in the beginning of the article. many readers don't want to go through all the historical nuances, and would benefit from getting a contemporary definition in the first place. Objections? Pundit| utter 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This section repeats the "Cold War" section with some idiotic modifications. Eastern Europe is defined as the countries east from the Iron Curtain while Western Europe is defined as the rest ("Most joined NATO and/or the European Community or its rival, the European Free Trade Association"). At first, this "divided Europe" ceased to exist about 20 years ago with the fall of the Communism. The criteria used in the "Western Europe" section apply to some countries classified as Eastern Europe (EU & NATO). Finally, some "Western" countries have little in common with the West (e.g. Greece is culturally Eastern, while the Czech Republic - Western). What's more, Central Europe has to be taken into account. And some sources would be useful... Montessquieu ( talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Montessquieu ( talk) 15:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
"e.g. Greece is culturally Eastern, while the Czech Republic - Western."
I can assure you technically speaking Greece, Italy and Spain are their own subgroup unlike Northern Europeans while Czech Republic is closer to the baltic and former yugoslavian states. The whole "culturally" thing doesnt make any sense 85.73.93.244 ( talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
"while Czech Republic is closer to the baltic and former yugoslavian states" I hope you're joking. Nither have we (I'm from the Czech republic) ever formed a country with the yugoslavians or baltics, nor are we in any way related (based on research, over 40% of our genes are of the german branch - makes sense - we formed a country with them (or the austrians) for almost 300 years...).
The total population for (what's commonly accepted as) Western Europe would be nice to have, wouldn't it? Adding together the populations of the separate countries doesn't violate WP:ORIG. 84.202.252.37 ( talk) 06:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The table appears to be missing Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City—according to the National Geographic Society. Hayden120 ( talk) 09:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)