![]() | 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 | Archive 4 |
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Western culture's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "euroreligion2012":
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) The question asked was "Do you consider yourself to be...?" With a card showing: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, and Non-believer/Agnostic. Space was given for Other (SPONTANEOUS) and DK. Jewish, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu did not reach the 1% threshold.{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) The question asked was "Do you consider yourself to be...?" With a card showing: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, and Non-believer/Agnostic. Space was given for Other (SPONTANEOUS) and DK. Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu did not reach the 1% threshold.I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really experienced at editing (I barely added anything here), but many edits seem to be biased and also original research (adding stuff like "based on Christian values" and "since the time of Charlemagne" witholut citing a single source) so I removed them. RotarenegEmem ( talk) 02:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I recently tried to tone down the massive lists of pictures of people who may or may not be relevant to western culture. However an anon user has now twice readded claiming the 56 of inventors and 40 of authors are of key importance to wikipedia. I challenge this assumption for the following reasons (1) It violates WP:IG as most of these people are not known for their faces but for their known. Hence the use of images is excessive and can easily be replaced by the text. In addition, the galleries are not even clearly linked to the text. (2) These galleries seem a way to circumvent WP:USEPROSE as long lists should be avoided in text. (3) It violates WP:NOTDIR by providing a simple list without sourcing or context (4) it violates WP:OR as the essential relevance for each and any should be provided based on reliable sources. E.g. the inclusion of Tolkien really needs a source. All in all I would say these galleries violate multiple policies and should be removed. (Nota bene, I did not remove e.g. architecture as the building images are central to their relevance.) Arnoutf ( talk) 18:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It has been brought to my attention that some might considered my revisions to be removing or otherwise understating Jewish influence or contributions to Western civilization.
It has been claimed I deleted sources: I believe I removed one that was vague and of debatable accuracy, but otherwise I have only added citations where either there were none or there could be more.
The article prior to my edits strongly implied a direct and prominent influence of Judaism upon the West: while this is arguably correct, I improved the accuracy by noting the specific historical context and branch of Judaism out of which Christianity emerged, and which affected the West the most strongly. I also edited the erroneous claim that Jews were considered a Western or European ethnic group or strong cultural or linguistic influence on the West or Christianity and expanded on the remarkably lax paragraph concerning Western antisemitism. I also made the demarcation between Christianity and Judaism more clear; the prior revision made it seem as if post-Temple Judaism and post-Jewish Christianity are more similar than is correct, and influenced Western culture to a similar or equal degree; I added mention of the definite split between the two, and the consequences that had upon later Jewish-Christian relations.
I also added material on Western theatre, improved grammar in several places, corrected an ambiguous and seemingly incorrect reference to Greek and Roman medicine, and added a few miscellaneous citations as needed.
As Jewish and Ancient Near Eastern history are my areas of expertise, I will leave any further edits to parts of the article not pertaining to those topics up to other contributors; I feel that my edits in those particular areas are accurate and well-sourced. Batanat ( talk) 09:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The first image on this page—the goat—seems rather inappropriate for the context and for its content. First of all, the caption does not explain the image, and, the length of the caption makes me think this subject should be made into its own section. Secondly, the source is heavily biased toward the argument it's making, and if that source is to be included I feel the bias should be made clear. For reference, from the synopsis of the book:
"Dawson traces the history of these developments and argues that Western civilization can only be saved by redirecting its entire educational system... [he] insists that the Christian college must be the cornerstone of such an educational reform. "
I would make the changes myself, but I am not experienced with changing images. I was also hoping others would weigh in considering this is a passionate subject for some. -
Pythagimedes (
talk)
00:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
South Africa and most Southern African countries are definitely Western Culture. They fundamentally Christian; operate economically, socially, politically as Western and identify with the West. Just look at the definition and what makes are country Western or not Western, then it is obviously Western self-evidently. [1]
I would like to add some content that specifically speaks to the place and contributions of Judaism within Western Culture. I feel that it does not receive enough credit within this article. I would like to add this paragraph into the already existing Religion section: "According to the Encyclopedia of Global Religions, Jewish people within Europe and the Middle East have had extensive influences on trade, poetry, philosophy, literature, and customs.[2] Because of their historically harsh treatment and need to frequently migrate, Jewish people acted as transporters of knowledge, bringing common European ideas to the predominantly Muslim Middle East.[2] The Encyclopedia of Global Religions also states that the tolerance and attitudes towards Jews within European states acted as a way of determining the open mindedness of that state.[2] Despite some nations being tolerant towards Jewish populations, historical records show that many Jews wished to be seen as a religious sect and not an ethnically separate population.[3] The Encyclopedia of Judaism specifically states that British Jews sought to do this by being seen first as British citizens and second as followers of Judaism.[3]" I would also like to add some sourced sentences that speak to the subjectivity of the phrase "Western Culture." These edits would look consist of these sentences being placed into the Terminology section: The Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture states that defining a "cultural area" is incredibly subjective and challenging.[4] According to scholars Jenkins and Karnos, culture can be defined as "an orientation for a person’s way of feeling, thinking, and being in the world."[5] According to National Geographic, the inclusion of Greek and Roman art, literature, and history has been pillar of Western Culture." My final edit would deal with adding some sentences on the potential negatives of Western Culture. This would make the article more neutral and not as glorifying to Western Culture. This would look like: The Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture maintains that "Western Culture" has used principles based in "freedom" and "democracy" to subjugate other cultures to colonial rule and even destroying some cultures.[4] Eurocentrism, an idea based on the existence of a "Western Culture" is defined by The Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture as "the conviction that Europe is an inevitable and necessary global reference point as it is the cultural, political and economic centre of the world."[4] European powers frequently used religion, specifically Christianity, to justify hostilities towards domestic and foreign groups.[1]
"Given a long history of colonialism, the overwhelming majority of South Americans speak Portuguese or Spanish, and societies and states reflect Western traditions". from the article on South America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.122.213 ( talk) 00:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Jingiby: In issues of verifiability, the WP:BURDEN is on the editor who adds or restores material. I would also suggest that when a fairly detailed rationale has already been included in the edit summary, the generic statement "not an improvement" is not a very strong rebuttal. (And I actually didn't even include all the lines of reasoning that I was thinking of, e.g. WP:EXCEPTIONAL fits the situation as well.) Sunrise ( talk) 09:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Enough forum posting. Drmies ( talk) 23:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It is suspicious that an article about a civilization is littered so profusely with credits to Christianity. The article should strictly be about the civilization itself and not the religion that was prominent at certain times. The bulk of Western civilization was created by non-Christian Europeans, and important contributions made by Islamic cultures and the Mongols (see "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World") are ignored, even over the supposed contributions of Jews. The implication here is of course that this article has been hijacked by Judeo-Christian kooks who are looking to credit their two-bit religion with the creation of Western civilization; which actually peaked long before the adoption of Christianity (concurrent with multiple military defeats and submission to more advanced Islam and the receiving of culture from non-Islamic cultures), and didn't begin to rebound until after the rejection of the primacy of Christianity (Age of Enlightenment).
Anilating ( talk) 01:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Anilating ( talk) 12:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Modern Western civilization in modern sense was rooted in the Antiquity, but shaped by Christianity, so I see no particular bias worth of shouting loud but rather usual Wikipedia sloppiness in broad-scope articles. If you have specific suggestions on article improvement, bring them here. Yes Christianity was a major effector, both positive and negative. Of course neither the Jews nor popes invented moral norms, but Christianity did work hard to enforce them. And so on. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Anilating ( talk) 00:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
[2]
Anilating ( talk) 00:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Anilating ( talk) 01:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Anilating ( talk) 02:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
References
|
Agreed. There is a strong Chrisitan bias about the postive effects of it's structures and the inherent "vile nature" of pagan societies. This is problematic black and white thinking. Christianity has had positive impacts on the world, and had many progressive elements compared with latin culture. Still, the article is clearly biased both in how it tescribes the religion in absolute positive terms and how it describes ;other religions in absolute negative terms. DxRxXxZx ( talk) 22:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kayceemoergeli.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bhousey7785.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to have Western religions as a separate article, religion is well within the scope of this article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no such a thing that Western Religion, only Western Christianity exist.-- 188.36.92.141 ( talk) 10:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The articles on Eastern vs Western religion are contentious enough and large pages in their own right. Merging them would cause issues in all regards. DxRxXxZx ( talk) 22:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Like 188 said, Western religion should be and is understood here as Western Christianity, rather than inclusive of Orthodoxy, Islam and numerous other Near and Middle Eastern religions. These would represent a serious change in meaning and conceptualization. There is already the concise concept of Abrahamic religions, which include the traditional Western religion Restern Christianity, as well as all variants of Eastern Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. I also have to note, that culture, geography and religion are all separate things. Rejigion shiuld be talked about in terms of its influence on modern western culture, but not as the bedrock or fundamental principle. Western identity exists independent to it. DxRxXxZx ( talk) 22:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, shouldn't we say that Ancient Greece is the cradle/birthplace of Western Culture instead of "Ancient Greece is considered the birthplace of many elements of Western culture"? I mean I can edit it, and that's how it is in the most wikipedia pages related to Western/European culture, but I want to ask first. Thanks in advance. Holloman123 ( talk) 08:43, 16 March 2021
User:Daveout, there is a good reason why historians no longer call the Middle Ages dark, and it is because it turned out to be an era of creative genius; the Gothic cathedrals for example, have been called the greatest masterpieces of Western architecture. No scandal of the church can change that. Graecusperseus ( talk) 08:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
00:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Hi,@
Liberty5651: and @
Jonathan f1:. For context, Im gonna put the part of the text that I removed (shortly after it was added), along with its sources, in the collapsible table bellow. This was my edit summary at the time: removing extremely tendentious claims. the catholic church thwarted the development of science and culture. that's why it's called the dark ages. "interfering" with something is not the same as "developing" it.
The "dark ages" thing comes from that. Liberty5651, That would be a good addition if good and neutral sources are provided, but that phrasing is tendentious in my opinion. It is best to write something like: The Catholic Church contributed, to some extent, to the preservation of some old Greek texts
or something along those lines... —
Daveout
(talk)
23:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Text being disputed
|
---|
Christian attempts to reconcile these frameworks were responsible for the preservation of Greek philosophy. [1] Western culture, throughout most of its history, has been nearly equivalent to Christian culture. [2] Historian Paul Legutko of Stanford University said the Catholic Church is "at the center of the development of the values, ideas, science, laws, and institutions which constitute what we call Western civilization." [3] Rescued sources:
|
Daveout
(talk)
03:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)The Catholic Church was for centuries at the center of the development of the values, ideas, science, laws and institutions which constitute Western civilization. I've also removed the other use of the book review as it's another copy of the Legutko statement. Sunrise ( talk) 07:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
While I still have a little time, and the topics are still fresh, some thoughts to put some flesh on the bones of the points above.
The most fundamental and simple point, that Huntington has gone from being a lowly regarded thinker many of whose predictions were uncertain, to being simultaneously an academically lowly regarded thinker many of whose predictions have specifically been proven wrong, still stands as a double reason for removing the map, but there are several more detailed points to be made.
The map should be understood in its context. As a scion of the US Cold War foreign policy establishment, Huntington and the institutions he was associated with were very worried by two particular developments at the moment of writing in 1993.
At the end of the Cold War, and the turn of the 1990s, the US, and George Bush Sr's administration in particular, had assumed, roughly, a unipolar liberal democratic order with the US as the head and exemplar - pace Fukuyama.
Instead, the US foreign policy establishment was suddenly faced with two very nasty surprises, for a group of people for whom great-power and balance-of-power theories were lifeblood ; Yugoslavia had suddenly descended into war, apparently entirely on religious-historical grounds , and simultaneously the US was suddenly becoming more aware of strategic errors it had made in the Middle East during the Cold War. At the time Huntington first started the article, in 1993 , the Serbo-Croat conflict, dating in reality as much to European strategic realpolitik of pre-World War I as to religious differences it capitalised on, had just spiralled further out of control, to take in a disastrous Christian-Muslim clash in Bosnia, which would go on to spread out further to Kosovo. American officials and policymakers, as well a broad mass of more radical post-modern thinkers at the time generally, believed they had underestimated the power of religion after the fall of communist ideology in Europe. Considering Russia's position in this, the most urgent strategic corollary and lesson, for the US in Europe at least, seemed to be that Russia may have been at the start of a process of pulling the Orthodox world back into its orbit , *despite* the end of communism.
At exactly the same time, in the wake of the defeat of the Communist government in Afghanistan partly by US-backed islamists, the Peshawar cross-community accords had just failed, and Islamists had just emerged as a distinct force in what had been previously been considered mainly a central theatre of the Cold War since the Russian invasion. The US foreign policy establishment was shocked by its errors in failing to predict the long-term consequences of supporting islamist forces against communism, as well as at other times against various secular-left and republican forces in other parts of the Middle East. This was relevant to the US position not only in Afghanistan, but crucially with Saudi Arabia, both as a monarchy and a conduit to Islamist influence all over the Sunni world at least. In the period Huntington was finishing the book three years later, thousands of people had been killed in Bosnia and the Taliban were about to take Kabul.
Part of the point so far is that there's no reason his thesis should not be understood as much, if not more, as an urgent manual for how a disorientated superpower should think in the world, at a particular time and place, and by a particular foreign policy functionary of 30 years - than any disinterested external academic analysis.
The framework was widely challenged and even mocked outside state-sponsored academic circles in the US in the mid-1990s, until one event revived it - September 11. Afghanistan, and the general rise of Islamism, had been major US foreign policy worries in 1993 when Huntington wrote his first article, and suddenly a Saudi islamist had launched a catastrophically destructive attack on US soil, from Afghanistan. There were plenty of US officials and policymakers who believed that not only the central concept of Huntington's prediction of a civilisational clash, but also the delineations of it, had been proven right. This also went on to inform George Bush Jr's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. A number of neoconservatives believed that they were first bowing to the inevitable in his clash of civilisations, but then could also overcome this process by re-imposing the unipolar liberal democratic order, which transcended cultural boundaries, as a result of the conflict. This might have been a type of Hegelian thinking you could expect from previously Marxist thinkers.
To move back to Huntington, what has happened since then is the story of the gradual unravelling of various parts of his thesis.
For instance and to begin with, in his hierarchy of existential conflict, Huntington said that Muslim-Christian conflict would be a dominant organising principle, not intra-religious conflict. Because of the US invading Iraq and deposing a Sunni dictator, by the 2010s Iran had developed a sphere of influence stretching from the border with Afghanistan to Irag and Syria, through to Lebanon on the Mediterranean coast. This bloc then formed one half of the supply network for the catastrophic conflict in Syria and Yemen against the Sunni Muslim world, which has killed hundreds of thousands of people, with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and also Turkey going on to champion the other side. The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran in particular is genuinely perceived by both sides as an existential fight for civilisational survival, which explains the ferocity of the conflict still going on in Yemen. In this conflict, Saudi Arabia not only cleaves closer to the West, but even Israel, than fellow Muslims, and Iran not only cleaves closer, but actually depends for its survival on the supposedly civilisationally and axiomatically opposed, according to Huntington's thesis, powers of Orthodox Russia and "Sinic" China.
If you move over to Europe, you're immediately struck again at how much Huntington's thesis has gone wrong. Because he was writing at the peak of the Yugoslav war for instance, he clearly imagined that Russia was at the start of exerting an ever-greater pull-factor in South-Eastern Europe by virtue of religion. Instead, not only have Bulgaria and Romania joined Nato and the EU, but now North Macedonia, Albania and even Montenegro are NATO members, too. Looking further afield, instead of feeling the inexorable pull of Russia, as in Huntington's model, Greece, as the only non ex-communist country Huntington characterised as part of the Eastern-Orthodox bloc, has clearly opted to bind itself into the Eurozone and the core of the mediterranean and north-west european EU, actually at any cost. In the process, during the Eurozone crisis, it also became even more obvious that the political economy and political culture of Greece, as by way of example a country with a strong grassroots and anarchist left, high regulation and a large public sector, had more in common, in a number of key respects, with Spain and Portugal, than its immediate neighbours. Without this, the Left mediterranean ( or Euro-atlantic, in the case of Portugal) parties of those countries would not have made, or been able to make, common cause against the EU north-western centre during the height of the Eurozone crisis, in the way they did. Cultural patterns related to this were already so obvious before the crisis, that Nicolas Sarkozy, with France itself in the conflicted position at the EU north-western centre but also as a Mediterranean nation sharing some of the characteristics, had attempted to found a "Mediterranean Union" around 2007-8, running along Spain, France, Italy and Greece, with Turkey and countries in North Africa on the balance of probability to be made next-tier members, on the strength of differences in their political and institutional set-up. This was actually an embryonic EU on a different geo-cultural basis, to be helped into being by French administrators once again. Instead, the real EU paid the ultimate tribute to it, and to how threateningly plausible the cultural substance of it actually was, by being extremely careful to knock it entirely on the head, and carefully broadened it into the essentially meaningless advisory talking shop of the "Union for the Mediterranean" , which has ended up having little influence, by including all of the EU and large parts of North Africa and the middle east.
It's too exhaustive to outline every area, but now let's have a look at South-East Asia. There are again clearly either major methodological errors, outdated research on the ground, or more probably both. When Huntington began writing in 1993, China was still an emergent middle-ranking power, not a superpower, and India was only recently emerging from a politically non-aligned status with the West - as well as negligible spheres of economic and political influence. India has now entirely moved away from a non-aligned position, but is also in simultaneous increasing conflict with China. Looking further around again, the idea that Myanmar is not now more heavily in the 'Sinic' sphere of influence than the "Buddhist Bloc" Huntington instinctively puts it in would be considered odd by many analysts today. This is because China has outgrown the political, economic and cultural role Huntington put it in.
Finally, let's have a look at Latin America. Huntington's thesis, that the entirety of Latin America is non "Western", is strikingly less nuanced, more broadbrush, and immediately more odd than for any other continent. This is probably why it was one of the most immediately questioned, contested and even ridiculed when it first came out. Chomsky's thoughts on it are useful, because they relate to points made earlier. Taking into account Huntington's personal and historical background, his account could easily be described as reflecting the history and justifications of US foreign policy, and a mandate for more in the future ; or a mandate "for the US to interfere or invade as often, or over as large an area as possible", as I think Chomsky more straightforwardly put it.
It's mentioned above, but it bears repeating : Huntington was not some random disinterested academic observer. He was an absolute stalwart of US Cold War total-realpolitik, who had been so obsessive about winning against Vietnam in 1968 for geo-strategic reasons, for instance, that he suggested deporting the entire Vietnamese population to the countryside if it was necessary to win the conflict, but without any of the underlying moral or cultural anger of later conservative strategists. He influenced ultra-realpolitik in the region throughout the '70s, which by the turn of the 1980s had culminated in one of the most astonishing moves in the history of US foreign policy, with both Reagan ( and Thatcher) ending up covertly supporting the genocidal Marxist-Leninist party of Pol Pot in exile purely on the grounds of Vietnamese policy. The point here, is that Huntington was almost as pragmatically opportunistic, rather than culturally driven, a thinker as you could possibly imagine, but here was giving a cultural analysis simply because it seemed contingent at the particular time, and was also influenced by post-modern trends of that time .
If you work from this starting-point, it's quite hard to discount anyone saying that there are good personal, professional-historical or bureaucratic reasons to be most suspicious of all of Huntington's Latin American continental characterisation, which is also the most immediately unorthodox and blanket continental characterisation of all of them. Purely because of geographical proximity, the US intervened more directly, widely and almost uniformly, and over a longer period of time, across the whole of the Latin American continent than anywhere else in the world.
An objection to all this might run : "OK, there a few errors here and there, but aren't the rough contours of the characterisation "roughly about right" ? Doesn't someone in Scotland still have more in common with someone in Germany than in Saudi Arabia ? Haven't we seen Christian-Muslim conflict" ?
The problem is that Huntington's analysis is *not* a quantitative analysis of trends, charting the balance of historical and cultural push-and-pull factors in certain places, a spectrum of more-or-less : it's qualitative and deterministic. All countries are fundamentally bound by the same equivalent historical forces, to organise themselves into the same equivalent historical groups, to fight their most existential and defining conflicts. If some of this doesn't work, none of it works. Jeremiad469 ( talk) 15:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Latin civilisation. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 10#Latin civilisation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
16:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
There are at least 4 references stating that Latin America, and Mexico as an extension (which is a NORTH AMERICAN country), are part of the West and Western culture. Why are they being deleted? This isn’t about what you like or dislike, this is about FACTS. The references build on each other these facts 1) Mexico is in North America, 2) North America is part of the Western world, and according to Webster’s dictionary, “Noun 1. Western civilization - the modern culture of western Europe and North America.” 3) Mexico is in Latin America 4) Latin America’s literature is stated by the Encyclopedia Britannica to be a Western Literature and listed as such along with others, including “European literature” and “Scandinavian literature”, etc. 4) Latin America is indeed part of the Western world: redirected from Western World is the definition for ‘Occident’, which means “The countries of Europe and the Western Hemisphere”. [1] [2] [3] [4] ll CMD007 ( talk) 01:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
I have issue with the terminology section. Not only can it be written better but the statements are questionable. I removed one of the sources because when I read it it was to an entire chapter being referenced about the Corpus Juris Civilis and nothing to do with the Byzantine empire being considered "not west" due to Iran and Arab influences, so I tagged it as a dubious claim. I also added a citation needed tag for an earlier part of the sentence on the claim that most scholars consider the Byzantine Empire not western. Apologies if I should have discussed here first but it's just so badly written that I feel the entire section needs a review. Elias ( talk) 07:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
This article does not have information concerning the use of the term 'western civilization'.
There needs to be information on the widespread usage of the term western civilization that is understood separately form the concept of western civilization. For example, the article on Christendom states in its Terminology section 'The Anglo-Saxon term crīstendōm appears to have been invented in the 9th century by a scribe somewhere in southern England'.
If information is available there should be text explaining whether the ancient Romans and Greeks commonly used the term 'western civilization' in ancient times.
Was there gradual or intermittent usage of the term 'western civilization' or was this term absent during dark ages, middle ages and medieval times?
Does the term western civilization only originate as a modern analytical term and then became a common term in modern times?
Information on all of these matters should be sought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.17.237 ( talk) 10:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Colin M ( talk) 16:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Western culture → Western civilization – More WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Probably the same applies for Eastern Culture, but there is already an open move request and I can not open a second one while the first isn't closed. Schleiz ( talk) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Why is Samuel Huntington's map being given such prominence by Wikipedia at the top of this page ? He's generally not well-regarded by international relations experts, either in his conclusions or in his methodology. Not only that, but his supposedly 'epochal' map is rooted in and dated by a very specific historical time and place. Writing almost thirty years ago, he saw the Yugoslavian war as being the barometer of allegiances in Europe, for instance. He probably expected that ex-communist South Eastern European countries would not join the EU, as they did. This is highly dated and very specifically of its time, and should not be at the top of the page.
Jeremiad469 ( talk) 01:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It also very clearly contradicts the first sentence of the section. I have removed it, just for the moment, pending any convincing refutation of these points, or particular reason to keep.
Jeremiad469 ( talk) 01:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't mind the map. As the user above said, it may not be "politically correct" from a modern point of view, but it is heavily discussed and cited. And it's not like the map has been free of criticism (this has been discussed in other talk pages). Plus, I think the map accurately depicts just how complex and arbitrary the definition of the "Western world" can be.
Look at the Philippines. The country sticks like out like a sore thumb in contrast to their neighbours, and Samuel Huntington's map labels much of the country as being "Western". They're about 92% Christian (sources vary, but I found one which claimed that about 86% was Catholic and the other 6% were other Christian followings), [1], and they have a lot of European and later American influence due to colonization/occupation. Such as many in the Philippines having European surnames, English is one of the official languages, and they're seemingly one of the few Asian countries who primarily use the Month-Day-Year format as opposed to mainly using the Day-Month-Year or Year-Month-Day format found in many neighbouring countries. Presumably because of the United States. They seem pretty "Western" to me. Though there are other people who would argue otherwise. Just like people who would argue that Latin America should be part of the "Western world" as well and others who feel differently. Clear Looking Glass ( talk) 04:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
No mention of Egypt’s contribution to Western civilization or Greece to begin with? What about Mesopotamia? India? Aztec? China? Christianity itself begun in Bronze Aged Palestine yet no mention of that? Nlivataye ( talk) 16:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure that the current illustrations of Western architecture are optimal. First, I think such illustrations should show widespread styles in Western countries, i.e., styles found in the majority of countries typically considered part of the West. These would be Romanesque art, Gothic art, Renaissance architecture, Baroque architecture and Classicism. Both the St. Basil's Cathedral and the Borgund Stave Church are styles too typical of their respective countries. The article is intended to demonstrate the commonalities between Western countries, not to point out features which are unique to individual countries. Second, I am not sure if Russia can even be considered a Western country, which would make the inclusion of St. Basil's Cathedral even more inappropriate. While there is no universally accepted list of countries that should be included, Russia is definitely not one of the core countries. This is evidenced both by the fact that the only map included in the article excludes Russia, and by the fact that most Russians do not see their country as part of the West. Regardless, I would suggest deleting these two examples and replacing them with examples from the styles above. Fhesse ( talk) 20:28, 15 June 2022 (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 | Archive 4 |
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Western culture's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "euroreligion2012":
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) The question asked was "Do you consider yourself to be...?" With a card showing: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, and Non-believer/Agnostic. Space was given for Other (SPONTANEOUS) and DK. Jewish, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu did not reach the 1% threshold.{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) The question asked was "Do you consider yourself to be...?" With a card showing: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, and Non-believer/Agnostic. Space was given for Other (SPONTANEOUS) and DK. Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu did not reach the 1% threshold.I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really experienced at editing (I barely added anything here), but many edits seem to be biased and also original research (adding stuff like "based on Christian values" and "since the time of Charlemagne" witholut citing a single source) so I removed them. RotarenegEmem ( talk) 02:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I recently tried to tone down the massive lists of pictures of people who may or may not be relevant to western culture. However an anon user has now twice readded claiming the 56 of inventors and 40 of authors are of key importance to wikipedia. I challenge this assumption for the following reasons (1) It violates WP:IG as most of these people are not known for their faces but for their known. Hence the use of images is excessive and can easily be replaced by the text. In addition, the galleries are not even clearly linked to the text. (2) These galleries seem a way to circumvent WP:USEPROSE as long lists should be avoided in text. (3) It violates WP:NOTDIR by providing a simple list without sourcing or context (4) it violates WP:OR as the essential relevance for each and any should be provided based on reliable sources. E.g. the inclusion of Tolkien really needs a source. All in all I would say these galleries violate multiple policies and should be removed. (Nota bene, I did not remove e.g. architecture as the building images are central to their relevance.) Arnoutf ( talk) 18:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It has been brought to my attention that some might considered my revisions to be removing or otherwise understating Jewish influence or contributions to Western civilization.
It has been claimed I deleted sources: I believe I removed one that was vague and of debatable accuracy, but otherwise I have only added citations where either there were none or there could be more.
The article prior to my edits strongly implied a direct and prominent influence of Judaism upon the West: while this is arguably correct, I improved the accuracy by noting the specific historical context and branch of Judaism out of which Christianity emerged, and which affected the West the most strongly. I also edited the erroneous claim that Jews were considered a Western or European ethnic group or strong cultural or linguistic influence on the West or Christianity and expanded on the remarkably lax paragraph concerning Western antisemitism. I also made the demarcation between Christianity and Judaism more clear; the prior revision made it seem as if post-Temple Judaism and post-Jewish Christianity are more similar than is correct, and influenced Western culture to a similar or equal degree; I added mention of the definite split between the two, and the consequences that had upon later Jewish-Christian relations.
I also added material on Western theatre, improved grammar in several places, corrected an ambiguous and seemingly incorrect reference to Greek and Roman medicine, and added a few miscellaneous citations as needed.
As Jewish and Ancient Near Eastern history are my areas of expertise, I will leave any further edits to parts of the article not pertaining to those topics up to other contributors; I feel that my edits in those particular areas are accurate and well-sourced. Batanat ( talk) 09:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The first image on this page—the goat—seems rather inappropriate for the context and for its content. First of all, the caption does not explain the image, and, the length of the caption makes me think this subject should be made into its own section. Secondly, the source is heavily biased toward the argument it's making, and if that source is to be included I feel the bias should be made clear. For reference, from the synopsis of the book:
"Dawson traces the history of these developments and argues that Western civilization can only be saved by redirecting its entire educational system... [he] insists that the Christian college must be the cornerstone of such an educational reform. "
I would make the changes myself, but I am not experienced with changing images. I was also hoping others would weigh in considering this is a passionate subject for some. -
Pythagimedes (
talk)
00:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
South Africa and most Southern African countries are definitely Western Culture. They fundamentally Christian; operate economically, socially, politically as Western and identify with the West. Just look at the definition and what makes are country Western or not Western, then it is obviously Western self-evidently. [1]
I would like to add some content that specifically speaks to the place and contributions of Judaism within Western Culture. I feel that it does not receive enough credit within this article. I would like to add this paragraph into the already existing Religion section: "According to the Encyclopedia of Global Religions, Jewish people within Europe and the Middle East have had extensive influences on trade, poetry, philosophy, literature, and customs.[2] Because of their historically harsh treatment and need to frequently migrate, Jewish people acted as transporters of knowledge, bringing common European ideas to the predominantly Muslim Middle East.[2] The Encyclopedia of Global Religions also states that the tolerance and attitudes towards Jews within European states acted as a way of determining the open mindedness of that state.[2] Despite some nations being tolerant towards Jewish populations, historical records show that many Jews wished to be seen as a religious sect and not an ethnically separate population.[3] The Encyclopedia of Judaism specifically states that British Jews sought to do this by being seen first as British citizens and second as followers of Judaism.[3]" I would also like to add some sourced sentences that speak to the subjectivity of the phrase "Western Culture." These edits would look consist of these sentences being placed into the Terminology section: The Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture states that defining a "cultural area" is incredibly subjective and challenging.[4] According to scholars Jenkins and Karnos, culture can be defined as "an orientation for a person’s way of feeling, thinking, and being in the world."[5] According to National Geographic, the inclusion of Greek and Roman art, literature, and history has been pillar of Western Culture." My final edit would deal with adding some sentences on the potential negatives of Western Culture. This would make the article more neutral and not as glorifying to Western Culture. This would look like: The Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture maintains that "Western Culture" has used principles based in "freedom" and "democracy" to subjugate other cultures to colonial rule and even destroying some cultures.[4] Eurocentrism, an idea based on the existence of a "Western Culture" is defined by The Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture as "the conviction that Europe is an inevitable and necessary global reference point as it is the cultural, political and economic centre of the world."[4] European powers frequently used religion, specifically Christianity, to justify hostilities towards domestic and foreign groups.[1]
"Given a long history of colonialism, the overwhelming majority of South Americans speak Portuguese or Spanish, and societies and states reflect Western traditions". from the article on South America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.122.213 ( talk) 00:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Jingiby: In issues of verifiability, the WP:BURDEN is on the editor who adds or restores material. I would also suggest that when a fairly detailed rationale has already been included in the edit summary, the generic statement "not an improvement" is not a very strong rebuttal. (And I actually didn't even include all the lines of reasoning that I was thinking of, e.g. WP:EXCEPTIONAL fits the situation as well.) Sunrise ( talk) 09:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Enough forum posting. Drmies ( talk) 23:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It is suspicious that an article about a civilization is littered so profusely with credits to Christianity. The article should strictly be about the civilization itself and not the religion that was prominent at certain times. The bulk of Western civilization was created by non-Christian Europeans, and important contributions made by Islamic cultures and the Mongols (see "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World") are ignored, even over the supposed contributions of Jews. The implication here is of course that this article has been hijacked by Judeo-Christian kooks who are looking to credit their two-bit religion with the creation of Western civilization; which actually peaked long before the adoption of Christianity (concurrent with multiple military defeats and submission to more advanced Islam and the receiving of culture from non-Islamic cultures), and didn't begin to rebound until after the rejection of the primacy of Christianity (Age of Enlightenment).
Anilating ( talk) 01:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Anilating ( talk) 12:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Modern Western civilization in modern sense was rooted in the Antiquity, but shaped by Christianity, so I see no particular bias worth of shouting loud but rather usual Wikipedia sloppiness in broad-scope articles. If you have specific suggestions on article improvement, bring them here. Yes Christianity was a major effector, both positive and negative. Of course neither the Jews nor popes invented moral norms, but Christianity did work hard to enforce them. And so on. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Anilating ( talk) 00:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
[2]
Anilating ( talk) 00:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Anilating ( talk) 01:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Anilating ( talk) 02:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
References
|
Agreed. There is a strong Chrisitan bias about the postive effects of it's structures and the inherent "vile nature" of pagan societies. This is problematic black and white thinking. Christianity has had positive impacts on the world, and had many progressive elements compared with latin culture. Still, the article is clearly biased both in how it tescribes the religion in absolute positive terms and how it describes ;other religions in absolute negative terms. DxRxXxZx ( talk) 22:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kayceemoergeli.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bhousey7785.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to have Western religions as a separate article, religion is well within the scope of this article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no such a thing that Western Religion, only Western Christianity exist.-- 188.36.92.141 ( talk) 10:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The articles on Eastern vs Western religion are contentious enough and large pages in their own right. Merging them would cause issues in all regards. DxRxXxZx ( talk) 22:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Like 188 said, Western religion should be and is understood here as Western Christianity, rather than inclusive of Orthodoxy, Islam and numerous other Near and Middle Eastern religions. These would represent a serious change in meaning and conceptualization. There is already the concise concept of Abrahamic religions, which include the traditional Western religion Restern Christianity, as well as all variants of Eastern Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. I also have to note, that culture, geography and religion are all separate things. Rejigion shiuld be talked about in terms of its influence on modern western culture, but not as the bedrock or fundamental principle. Western identity exists independent to it. DxRxXxZx ( talk) 22:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, shouldn't we say that Ancient Greece is the cradle/birthplace of Western Culture instead of "Ancient Greece is considered the birthplace of many elements of Western culture"? I mean I can edit it, and that's how it is in the most wikipedia pages related to Western/European culture, but I want to ask first. Thanks in advance. Holloman123 ( talk) 08:43, 16 March 2021
User:Daveout, there is a good reason why historians no longer call the Middle Ages dark, and it is because it turned out to be an era of creative genius; the Gothic cathedrals for example, have been called the greatest masterpieces of Western architecture. No scandal of the church can change that. Graecusperseus ( talk) 08:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
00:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Hi,@
Liberty5651: and @
Jonathan f1:. For context, Im gonna put the part of the text that I removed (shortly after it was added), along with its sources, in the collapsible table bellow. This was my edit summary at the time: removing extremely tendentious claims. the catholic church thwarted the development of science and culture. that's why it's called the dark ages. "interfering" with something is not the same as "developing" it.
The "dark ages" thing comes from that. Liberty5651, That would be a good addition if good and neutral sources are provided, but that phrasing is tendentious in my opinion. It is best to write something like: The Catholic Church contributed, to some extent, to the preservation of some old Greek texts
or something along those lines... —
Daveout
(talk)
23:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Text being disputed
|
---|
Christian attempts to reconcile these frameworks were responsible for the preservation of Greek philosophy. [1] Western culture, throughout most of its history, has been nearly equivalent to Christian culture. [2] Historian Paul Legutko of Stanford University said the Catholic Church is "at the center of the development of the values, ideas, science, laws, and institutions which constitute what we call Western civilization." [3] Rescued sources:
|
Daveout
(talk)
03:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)The Catholic Church was for centuries at the center of the development of the values, ideas, science, laws and institutions which constitute Western civilization. I've also removed the other use of the book review as it's another copy of the Legutko statement. Sunrise ( talk) 07:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
While I still have a little time, and the topics are still fresh, some thoughts to put some flesh on the bones of the points above.
The most fundamental and simple point, that Huntington has gone from being a lowly regarded thinker many of whose predictions were uncertain, to being simultaneously an academically lowly regarded thinker many of whose predictions have specifically been proven wrong, still stands as a double reason for removing the map, but there are several more detailed points to be made.
The map should be understood in its context. As a scion of the US Cold War foreign policy establishment, Huntington and the institutions he was associated with were very worried by two particular developments at the moment of writing in 1993.
At the end of the Cold War, and the turn of the 1990s, the US, and George Bush Sr's administration in particular, had assumed, roughly, a unipolar liberal democratic order with the US as the head and exemplar - pace Fukuyama.
Instead, the US foreign policy establishment was suddenly faced with two very nasty surprises, for a group of people for whom great-power and balance-of-power theories were lifeblood ; Yugoslavia had suddenly descended into war, apparently entirely on religious-historical grounds , and simultaneously the US was suddenly becoming more aware of strategic errors it had made in the Middle East during the Cold War. At the time Huntington first started the article, in 1993 , the Serbo-Croat conflict, dating in reality as much to European strategic realpolitik of pre-World War I as to religious differences it capitalised on, had just spiralled further out of control, to take in a disastrous Christian-Muslim clash in Bosnia, which would go on to spread out further to Kosovo. American officials and policymakers, as well a broad mass of more radical post-modern thinkers at the time generally, believed they had underestimated the power of religion after the fall of communist ideology in Europe. Considering Russia's position in this, the most urgent strategic corollary and lesson, for the US in Europe at least, seemed to be that Russia may have been at the start of a process of pulling the Orthodox world back into its orbit , *despite* the end of communism.
At exactly the same time, in the wake of the defeat of the Communist government in Afghanistan partly by US-backed islamists, the Peshawar cross-community accords had just failed, and Islamists had just emerged as a distinct force in what had been previously been considered mainly a central theatre of the Cold War since the Russian invasion. The US foreign policy establishment was shocked by its errors in failing to predict the long-term consequences of supporting islamist forces against communism, as well as at other times against various secular-left and republican forces in other parts of the Middle East. This was relevant to the US position not only in Afghanistan, but crucially with Saudi Arabia, both as a monarchy and a conduit to Islamist influence all over the Sunni world at least. In the period Huntington was finishing the book three years later, thousands of people had been killed in Bosnia and the Taliban were about to take Kabul.
Part of the point so far is that there's no reason his thesis should not be understood as much, if not more, as an urgent manual for how a disorientated superpower should think in the world, at a particular time and place, and by a particular foreign policy functionary of 30 years - than any disinterested external academic analysis.
The framework was widely challenged and even mocked outside state-sponsored academic circles in the US in the mid-1990s, until one event revived it - September 11. Afghanistan, and the general rise of Islamism, had been major US foreign policy worries in 1993 when Huntington wrote his first article, and suddenly a Saudi islamist had launched a catastrophically destructive attack on US soil, from Afghanistan. There were plenty of US officials and policymakers who believed that not only the central concept of Huntington's prediction of a civilisational clash, but also the delineations of it, had been proven right. This also went on to inform George Bush Jr's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. A number of neoconservatives believed that they were first bowing to the inevitable in his clash of civilisations, but then could also overcome this process by re-imposing the unipolar liberal democratic order, which transcended cultural boundaries, as a result of the conflict. This might have been a type of Hegelian thinking you could expect from previously Marxist thinkers.
To move back to Huntington, what has happened since then is the story of the gradual unravelling of various parts of his thesis.
For instance and to begin with, in his hierarchy of existential conflict, Huntington said that Muslim-Christian conflict would be a dominant organising principle, not intra-religious conflict. Because of the US invading Iraq and deposing a Sunni dictator, by the 2010s Iran had developed a sphere of influence stretching from the border with Afghanistan to Irag and Syria, through to Lebanon on the Mediterranean coast. This bloc then formed one half of the supply network for the catastrophic conflict in Syria and Yemen against the Sunni Muslim world, which has killed hundreds of thousands of people, with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and also Turkey going on to champion the other side. The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran in particular is genuinely perceived by both sides as an existential fight for civilisational survival, which explains the ferocity of the conflict still going on in Yemen. In this conflict, Saudi Arabia not only cleaves closer to the West, but even Israel, than fellow Muslims, and Iran not only cleaves closer, but actually depends for its survival on the supposedly civilisationally and axiomatically opposed, according to Huntington's thesis, powers of Orthodox Russia and "Sinic" China.
If you move over to Europe, you're immediately struck again at how much Huntington's thesis has gone wrong. Because he was writing at the peak of the Yugoslav war for instance, he clearly imagined that Russia was at the start of exerting an ever-greater pull-factor in South-Eastern Europe by virtue of religion. Instead, not only have Bulgaria and Romania joined Nato and the EU, but now North Macedonia, Albania and even Montenegro are NATO members, too. Looking further afield, instead of feeling the inexorable pull of Russia, as in Huntington's model, Greece, as the only non ex-communist country Huntington characterised as part of the Eastern-Orthodox bloc, has clearly opted to bind itself into the Eurozone and the core of the mediterranean and north-west european EU, actually at any cost. In the process, during the Eurozone crisis, it also became even more obvious that the political economy and political culture of Greece, as by way of example a country with a strong grassroots and anarchist left, high regulation and a large public sector, had more in common, in a number of key respects, with Spain and Portugal, than its immediate neighbours. Without this, the Left mediterranean ( or Euro-atlantic, in the case of Portugal) parties of those countries would not have made, or been able to make, common cause against the EU north-western centre during the height of the Eurozone crisis, in the way they did. Cultural patterns related to this were already so obvious before the crisis, that Nicolas Sarkozy, with France itself in the conflicted position at the EU north-western centre but also as a Mediterranean nation sharing some of the characteristics, had attempted to found a "Mediterranean Union" around 2007-8, running along Spain, France, Italy and Greece, with Turkey and countries in North Africa on the balance of probability to be made next-tier members, on the strength of differences in their political and institutional set-up. This was actually an embryonic EU on a different geo-cultural basis, to be helped into being by French administrators once again. Instead, the real EU paid the ultimate tribute to it, and to how threateningly plausible the cultural substance of it actually was, by being extremely careful to knock it entirely on the head, and carefully broadened it into the essentially meaningless advisory talking shop of the "Union for the Mediterranean" , which has ended up having little influence, by including all of the EU and large parts of North Africa and the middle east.
It's too exhaustive to outline every area, but now let's have a look at South-East Asia. There are again clearly either major methodological errors, outdated research on the ground, or more probably both. When Huntington began writing in 1993, China was still an emergent middle-ranking power, not a superpower, and India was only recently emerging from a politically non-aligned status with the West - as well as negligible spheres of economic and political influence. India has now entirely moved away from a non-aligned position, but is also in simultaneous increasing conflict with China. Looking further around again, the idea that Myanmar is not now more heavily in the 'Sinic' sphere of influence than the "Buddhist Bloc" Huntington instinctively puts it in would be considered odd by many analysts today. This is because China has outgrown the political, economic and cultural role Huntington put it in.
Finally, let's have a look at Latin America. Huntington's thesis, that the entirety of Latin America is non "Western", is strikingly less nuanced, more broadbrush, and immediately more odd than for any other continent. This is probably why it was one of the most immediately questioned, contested and even ridiculed when it first came out. Chomsky's thoughts on it are useful, because they relate to points made earlier. Taking into account Huntington's personal and historical background, his account could easily be described as reflecting the history and justifications of US foreign policy, and a mandate for more in the future ; or a mandate "for the US to interfere or invade as often, or over as large an area as possible", as I think Chomsky more straightforwardly put it.
It's mentioned above, but it bears repeating : Huntington was not some random disinterested academic observer. He was an absolute stalwart of US Cold War total-realpolitik, who had been so obsessive about winning against Vietnam in 1968 for geo-strategic reasons, for instance, that he suggested deporting the entire Vietnamese population to the countryside if it was necessary to win the conflict, but without any of the underlying moral or cultural anger of later conservative strategists. He influenced ultra-realpolitik in the region throughout the '70s, which by the turn of the 1980s had culminated in one of the most astonishing moves in the history of US foreign policy, with both Reagan ( and Thatcher) ending up covertly supporting the genocidal Marxist-Leninist party of Pol Pot in exile purely on the grounds of Vietnamese policy. The point here, is that Huntington was almost as pragmatically opportunistic, rather than culturally driven, a thinker as you could possibly imagine, but here was giving a cultural analysis simply because it seemed contingent at the particular time, and was also influenced by post-modern trends of that time .
If you work from this starting-point, it's quite hard to discount anyone saying that there are good personal, professional-historical or bureaucratic reasons to be most suspicious of all of Huntington's Latin American continental characterisation, which is also the most immediately unorthodox and blanket continental characterisation of all of them. Purely because of geographical proximity, the US intervened more directly, widely and almost uniformly, and over a longer period of time, across the whole of the Latin American continent than anywhere else in the world.
An objection to all this might run : "OK, there a few errors here and there, but aren't the rough contours of the characterisation "roughly about right" ? Doesn't someone in Scotland still have more in common with someone in Germany than in Saudi Arabia ? Haven't we seen Christian-Muslim conflict" ?
The problem is that Huntington's analysis is *not* a quantitative analysis of trends, charting the balance of historical and cultural push-and-pull factors in certain places, a spectrum of more-or-less : it's qualitative and deterministic. All countries are fundamentally bound by the same equivalent historical forces, to organise themselves into the same equivalent historical groups, to fight their most existential and defining conflicts. If some of this doesn't work, none of it works. Jeremiad469 ( talk) 15:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Latin civilisation. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 10#Latin civilisation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
16:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
There are at least 4 references stating that Latin America, and Mexico as an extension (which is a NORTH AMERICAN country), are part of the West and Western culture. Why are they being deleted? This isn’t about what you like or dislike, this is about FACTS. The references build on each other these facts 1) Mexico is in North America, 2) North America is part of the Western world, and according to Webster’s dictionary, “Noun 1. Western civilization - the modern culture of western Europe and North America.” 3) Mexico is in Latin America 4) Latin America’s literature is stated by the Encyclopedia Britannica to be a Western Literature and listed as such along with others, including “European literature” and “Scandinavian literature”, etc. 4) Latin America is indeed part of the Western world: redirected from Western World is the definition for ‘Occident’, which means “The countries of Europe and the Western Hemisphere”. [1] [2] [3] [4] ll CMD007 ( talk) 01:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
I have issue with the terminology section. Not only can it be written better but the statements are questionable. I removed one of the sources because when I read it it was to an entire chapter being referenced about the Corpus Juris Civilis and nothing to do with the Byzantine empire being considered "not west" due to Iran and Arab influences, so I tagged it as a dubious claim. I also added a citation needed tag for an earlier part of the sentence on the claim that most scholars consider the Byzantine Empire not western. Apologies if I should have discussed here first but it's just so badly written that I feel the entire section needs a review. Elias ( talk) 07:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
This article does not have information concerning the use of the term 'western civilization'.
There needs to be information on the widespread usage of the term western civilization that is understood separately form the concept of western civilization. For example, the article on Christendom states in its Terminology section 'The Anglo-Saxon term crīstendōm appears to have been invented in the 9th century by a scribe somewhere in southern England'.
If information is available there should be text explaining whether the ancient Romans and Greeks commonly used the term 'western civilization' in ancient times.
Was there gradual or intermittent usage of the term 'western civilization' or was this term absent during dark ages, middle ages and medieval times?
Does the term western civilization only originate as a modern analytical term and then became a common term in modern times?
Information on all of these matters should be sought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.17.237 ( talk) 10:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Colin M ( talk) 16:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Western culture → Western civilization – More WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Probably the same applies for Eastern Culture, but there is already an open move request and I can not open a second one while the first isn't closed. Schleiz ( talk) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Why is Samuel Huntington's map being given such prominence by Wikipedia at the top of this page ? He's generally not well-regarded by international relations experts, either in his conclusions or in his methodology. Not only that, but his supposedly 'epochal' map is rooted in and dated by a very specific historical time and place. Writing almost thirty years ago, he saw the Yugoslavian war as being the barometer of allegiances in Europe, for instance. He probably expected that ex-communist South Eastern European countries would not join the EU, as they did. This is highly dated and very specifically of its time, and should not be at the top of the page.
Jeremiad469 ( talk) 01:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It also very clearly contradicts the first sentence of the section. I have removed it, just for the moment, pending any convincing refutation of these points, or particular reason to keep.
Jeremiad469 ( talk) 01:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't mind the map. As the user above said, it may not be "politically correct" from a modern point of view, but it is heavily discussed and cited. And it's not like the map has been free of criticism (this has been discussed in other talk pages). Plus, I think the map accurately depicts just how complex and arbitrary the definition of the "Western world" can be.
Look at the Philippines. The country sticks like out like a sore thumb in contrast to their neighbours, and Samuel Huntington's map labels much of the country as being "Western". They're about 92% Christian (sources vary, but I found one which claimed that about 86% was Catholic and the other 6% were other Christian followings), [1], and they have a lot of European and later American influence due to colonization/occupation. Such as many in the Philippines having European surnames, English is one of the official languages, and they're seemingly one of the few Asian countries who primarily use the Month-Day-Year format as opposed to mainly using the Day-Month-Year or Year-Month-Day format found in many neighbouring countries. Presumably because of the United States. They seem pretty "Western" to me. Though there are other people who would argue otherwise. Just like people who would argue that Latin America should be part of the "Western world" as well and others who feel differently. Clear Looking Glass ( talk) 04:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
No mention of Egypt’s contribution to Western civilization or Greece to begin with? What about Mesopotamia? India? Aztec? China? Christianity itself begun in Bronze Aged Palestine yet no mention of that? Nlivataye ( talk) 16:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure that the current illustrations of Western architecture are optimal. First, I think such illustrations should show widespread styles in Western countries, i.e., styles found in the majority of countries typically considered part of the West. These would be Romanesque art, Gothic art, Renaissance architecture, Baroque architecture and Classicism. Both the St. Basil's Cathedral and the Borgund Stave Church are styles too typical of their respective countries. The article is intended to demonstrate the commonalities between Western countries, not to point out features which are unique to individual countries. Second, I am not sure if Russia can even be considered a Western country, which would make the inclusion of St. Basil's Cathedral even more inappropriate. While there is no universally accepted list of countries that should be included, Russia is definitely not one of the core countries. This is evidenced both by the fact that the only map included in the article excludes Russia, and by the fact that most Russians do not see their country as part of the West. Regardless, I would suggest deleting these two examples and replacing them with examples from the styles above. Fhesse ( talk) 20:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)