Talk:Western Europe

"present definition, as defined by the CIA World Factbook"

Since when do Americans get to define European specific issues? I'm tagging this section

Western Europe in 99% of maps includes United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Monaco, Spain, Vatican City, San Marino, Austria, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Denmark...

...before the fall of communism. You forgot Finland, Turkey, Malta and Cyprus: all are Western Europe according to Cold War criteria. 99%? I would challenge that: what kind of resources you checked? Are they well-established? Are they reliable? Are they scholarly papers? Are they contemporary? Are they reflecting modern reality?

--Rejedef (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Western Europe sometimes includes additionally; Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Greece.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] - Gennarous (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of them are travel guides. Do you think they are scholarly enough? Do you think we should refer to onlycruisetravel.com or CIA, z.about.com or United Nations Experts on Geographical names, etours-online.com or BBC?

--Rejedef (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, 99% of maps? Give me a break. Have you done some own original research on that, or is it just a guess? Secondly, I don't think reliable sources coming from the US should be discarded (no more than Britannica should be discarded as a source of information on the US), and the CIA World Factbook can hardly be considered unreliable. Thirdly, as long as the section is properly sourced and the categorizations attributed to particular publications (as it is in this case) you cannot arbitrarily tag it as disputed in terms of factual accuracy. Moreover, since when are United Nations American? Thus, I'm removing the tags as they are not applicable in this particular case. Feel free to introduce the sources you found to the article itself, so that the plurality of views is even more represented. Pundit|utter 22:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Gennarous, The World Factbook is giving simply the geographical definition, not the geopolitical definition. But I agree with you, we lack a geopolitical definition for this article. The Eastern Europe article suffers from the same problem.

if you want geopolitical definition, why not to pop into European Union webpages?

This is one of Central Europe definitions according to European Union: http://www.central2013.eu/ http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/analy114.pdf Also, there are criteria according to culture (changing much slower): http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp48.pdf http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/about/director/pubs/523.pdf

But I am really really tired of arguing, so in January 2008 I settled with the geographical definition.

Pundit may confirm this...Back then I had to insist fiercely in order to get the word geographical included on the article.

BTW Pundit is Polish and I am Brazilian, so don't accuse the Americans.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I do confirm. We had an ardent dispute, but we made it constructive and agreed. As I look back to then now, I think our problem was also with an unfortunate beginning, when one of us assumed the other is a vandal. Anyway, I don't think any editor will object to adding a section with a geopolitical, political, or economical section, as long as it is grounded in sources and relevant. As far as the US bias goes, just as EconomistBR pointed out, we both are non-Americans (unless you count Brazil as America, which would be far from your original argument). Although I am at an American university now, my permanent affiliation is European :) Pundit|utter 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I bow before Brazil which is great. The thing about the subdivision of Europe is even more complicated. European Union (an economical and political unit) persuades the usage of the new sub-division: http://www.central2013.eu/ and thousands of reports, programs and strategies. Europe is changing so fast that 2008 discussion is slightly obsolete. Nationality doesn't matter unless we keep ourselves close to facts. I believe that involving extra Europeans may be difficult for them as they spent very limited amount of time in Europe so or never been here at all, reading (non-up-to-date) books. Consequently their experience of modern Europe might be very little. I can imagine how difficult that must be for them to participate in the discussion, but it's needed, again. Your knowledge and expert knowledge may be useful. --Rejedef (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As a European myself I agree that the CIA definition of what is supposed to be western Europe doesn't all all correspond with the standard understanding of the term. It seems a if 60% of the western European countries would have been put out of what they always blonged to (think of Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Scandinavia, Spain, Portugal, etc.) Are always considered to be part of western Europe. That the CIA, a non-European organisation (which is not an encyclopedia) decided they were not speaks only for tehmeselves and should not redefine the concept as it is used and understood cince centuries by most European peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Education related quite often to cold war terms, but nowadays we use terms (clarifications in a nutshell): Western Europe (former great colonial empires having colonies over Atlantic and Southern Asia: Spain, Portugal, France, the UK, Netherlands and their former European territories, under vast influence of French, Spanish, Dutch and English culture) and Eastern Europe (culturally orthodox, using Cyrillic alphabet and politically close to Russia) along with Northern Europe (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland and Baltic states: Nordic and Baltic cultures, mostly Germanic languages, languages, Lutheran), Central Europe (continental powers, influenced both by Protestantism and Catholicism, states which adopted industrialisation relatively fast and remain under great influence of German and Polish-speaking cultures), Southern Europe [Western - dominated by Catholicism and involved in colonialism over the Atlantic Ocean and Eastern - culturally Osman or Byzantine] (from (Armenia, Georgia, Turkey and Cyprus? - if they are considered as Europe) Greece and the Balkans to Spain and Portugal). Do you believe that subdivision is any better? --Rejedef (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic article

This article contains inordinately many inconsistencies (e.g., different subsections make different claims about Greece as part of WE) and superfluous material that it is hardly encyclopedic any more. I suggest to begin the article with the United Nations definition[10] and the accompanying map as the most neutral. This is how the sister article on NE proceeds before delving into the different historical definitions. Accordingly, the stats table should only contain data for countries that the UN has designated as belonging to the region. The map[11] that is supposedly based on the National Geographic Society definition is clearly out of date, the Society's website treats Europe now as a whole (if kept, it should be added to the political history section). As for the other definitions proposed on this talk page - most of them are widely accepted only in certain traditions (e.g., the German tradition of Central Europe). All definitions based on the political history between 1945 and 1991 may have been expedient then but are out of date now. In summary, the United Nations definition is the only one that is supranational and apolitical, and therefore shouldn't cause any controversy. --Vihelik (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The only academic and valid map seems to be the UN one. Edit.--Alpeagle (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be an edit-war, by here, but we wait for comments...--Alpeagle (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That UN map is basically irrelevant. Pretending this map reflects any opinion of which countries are part of Western Europe is like saying that, according to the UN, neither Singapore nor Taiwan are industrialized, and Hongkong is a country, and, also according to the UN, Poland, Czech, the Baltic states etc. are neither in Central nor in Eastern Europe. The map presents a statistical classification that is just as arbitrary as calling $12196 a high income and $12195 not. There are a lot of different definitions of what Western Europe is, even within the UN. More importantly, there is such thing as a Western European Union formed by governments that probably should know best where their respective countries are.

In short, I don't see why this article should begin with the most questionable map available. Yaan (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Yaan. Unobjectionable (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, Yaan. The UN classification, Poland or Czech Republic are in Eastern Europe.

http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm

It is not the most questionable map, but the most academic. Others are chosen picked-up maps. --Alpeagle (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, picked up from universities around the world. Unobjectionable (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

from Universities that you have chosen.--Alpeagle (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I am ready to add more refs, including National Geographic Society Style Manual. [12] Unobjectionable (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, your link does not work. And why should be the "National Geographic Society" more accurate than UN ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpeagle (talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it works perfectly and reads this:

Western Europe Capitalize in a historical context when referring to the political entity of noncommunist Europe after World War II. Geographically, that region is western and part of central Europe. See also central Europe and Eastern Europe.

It is very clear. Unobjectionable (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not work. BTW, you did not answered : why should be the "National Geographic Society" more accurate than UN ? Apparently, you don't like communists. But we are here in an encyclopedia, not in the tribune of your party. --Alpeagle (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The link to NGS Manual of Style works very well. It is one of the most notable Geography organizations, reputed for its accuracy when referring to maps and geographic issues. As you and I know, It is one of the greatest scholarly societies in the World. Communists? There aren't communists anymore. I can't dislike nonexistent people. :) Cheers. Unobjectionable (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"It is one of the most notable Geography organizations, reputed for its accuracy when referring to maps and geographic issues."

I did not asked why YOU find this source more accurate, I asked you why this source should be more accurate ?--Alpeagle (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to remove the UN map, although I think it isn't the most accurate. Only you are deleting maps here, again and again. The UN map is a definition of WE and should be shown as well as the WE map used by hundreds of organizations, and you have no right to force the exclusive use of a specific non-vinculative map that only you support. BTW did you read the sourced statement "According to the UN Statistics Division, 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."? Unobjectionable (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Alpeagle, you are, in essence, arguing that a grouping whose main motivation is the statistical convenience of one particular organization - and which is, as shown several times, not even used consistently - trumps every other opinion about what constitutes Western Europe.

Such an approach might be acceptable for an article about Western Europe (United Nations Statistics Division country grouping), but this rticle is about a concept that has been in use well before the UN even existed.

Yaan (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. This article seems to be about the concept on the whole, as much about the ancient times as the after-UN creation. If you retain only the ancient times, the definition will be even more controversial. There are many examples.--Alpeagle (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My point was not so much that 'Western Europe' is an old concept (is 1944 really 'ancient times'?), but that it is not a concept that is defined by the UN.

Also I don't think the concept is very controversial. Outside WP, most authors seem to be OK with accepting that there is not one clear-cut definition of which countries are part of Western Europe and which are not. Yaan (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yaan, to be honest, in the World and in particularly in Europe changes are really fast. Although 1944 seems to be not distant in time at all, hundreds of changes happened to us, including Cold War, the collapse of European communist regimes, the Internet era commenced, social networks emerged several years ago... economic outlook of the world channged in favour of China. If one tells me nothing changed, I thin the person may men people's needs rather than the world.

Relating to the United nations, we might like to stick to their experts on geography: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp48.pdf and major, well-established media like BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/country_profiles/default.stm considering Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Poland etc. as Central Europe http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1032215.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision of new sub-division of Europe

I suggest to revise the document and create an appropriate map: http://web.archive.org/web/20070706015917/http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/gegn23wp48.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's the direct link to United Nations: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp48.pdf --Rejedef (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This paper that so many editors keep referring to is meaningless, at least it is not a valid reference. It is a working paper that apparently was never followed up by a proper (academic) paper, as promised. A summary of discussions and proposals does not equal a decision or a resolution. --Vihelik (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is one of thousands of documents. I find it valuable because it was released by United nations geographical experts. To me it's more authoritative than BBC. If you like more references (like millions), please, visit jstor.org and google.scholar

One of academic resources that will satisfy you is the book 'Central Europe: enemies, neighbors, friends' by Lonnie Johnson published by Oxford University Press in 2002. It's description: 'This historical survey of Central Europe covers a region that encompasses contemporary Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, and Croatia. Now in its second edition, Central Europe: Enemies, Neighbors, Friends contains a new epilogue-updated to cover eventssince 1995-and several redesigned or updated maps. Each chapter is thematically organized around issues or events that are important in helping students develop an understanding of the region's internal dynamics. Johnson illuminates the competing religious, cultural, economic, national, andideological interests that have driven the history of Central Europe. Thorough, objective, and focused, Johnson's work stands out as both a useful core text covering an area of growing interest and a brilliant account of a region that is only just beginning to receive the attention it deserves.'

Also, this summer Western European Union will exist on more: http://www.weu.int/

What do you think? --Rejedef (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that there are "millions" of references out there on JSTOR and elsewhere. Academic papers and official resolutions are exactly the types of documents that need to be used for references in Wikipedia. My only concern was the provisional agenda prepared by Peter Jordan in 2006 for the UN group of experts. Anyone could write a provisional paper, submit it to the UN, and then keep citing it. I don't doubt that the proposals in this paper are good, but they don't seem to have been legitimized by any kind of resolution. Can you provide sources for the follow-up of this proposal? --Vihelik (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right but her is the number of references I mentioned. JStOR: 369,802 Google Scholar: 'about 2,880,000' Google books: About 3,510,000 results I hope it is clearer, now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN DEFINITION OF WESTERN EUROPE

The most of present-day American determinations based on Cold-war situation, which are not compatible with the determinations of European scientists and people. --Crowderland (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It highly depends on a scholar. Traditionalists are unlikely to change their view, because they believe they are right. Those more innovative and concious, like Larry Wolff are not into dividing Europe into blocks, especially, as you already said, the Cold War is over and West-East divide is invalid more and more.

According to Edward Lucas, countries in Europe should be classified on facts. --Rejedef (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAP AND POPULATION OF WE

This map has been removed since the link of National Geographic does not seem to work, plus the other links show condradicting information in regards to the map, for instance 2 links show countries (e.g. Greece) which do not appear on this map. Also Population of Western Europe has been removed since this is totally unscourced material. Nochoje (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Can the editor who reverted explain where does this site http://stylemanual.ngs.org/home/E/europe-geographical-and-political, contain ANY information relevant either to the "NG map" or the "NG population of WE" table?Nochoje (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The map is further supported by the information provided by http://stylemanual.ngs.org/ and other sources added. Regarding the population figures, they could and probably should be supported by additional sources. This does not mean however, that this information has to be deleted. Probaly, we should add the need of these references. It would be good to reach some sort of consensus before introducing such radical changes and not after. Hence the rv. Arcillaroja (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The map is not supported by the information provided by http://stylemanual.ngs.org. Can you please state where exactly does this site support that those specific countries must be coloured yellow and not some more or some less? Is there a list of countries in this site that correspond to what the read sees on the map? As far as the "WE list and population figures" the problem is not only with the population figures. The problem is that the list of countries is not sourced. The link you provide for this is exactly the same as per above and the above shows no country listing, nor population figures. Thus I believe that when someone introduces a new content in Wikipedia he/she should also take care to back it up with references. Otherwise anyone could add whatever he wants and leave the back up (if it existed in fact) to someone else in the future. But on the meantime? Is the material right or wrong? We dont know unless it's backed up.Nochoje (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Also further to the above, the references for the map are contradicting in regards to the map itself:

For instance the references are:

http://www.international.ucla.edu/euro/countries/westeurope/index.asp http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr10-00-00&post=1

Which for instance show Greece as part of Western Europe (which it is) and the map does not show that. Nochoje (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And even further to that, the map itself was created by using this site: http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/continents/europe/

The information contained as you can see are TOTALLY irrelevant with what it appears on the map.

To conclude, I believe that either the map must be erased, or re-drawn from credible sources. I would do that myslef, but unfortunately i dont have the technical skills to do it :) Nochoje (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nochoje, The map is supported by the following definition provided by ng: Western Europe: Capitalize in a historical context when referring to the political entity of noncommunist Europe after World War II. AS you can see, all countries in the map do meet this requirement. On the other hand, you are absolutely right regarding Greece. It is not known to me why Greece is not included in the map and maybe the map should be changed to reflect this point. The same could be said about the list of countries. Maybe, instead of removing the information, we could try to add what is missing and the sources needed for it. Since I do not want an edit war, I will not revert now such a radical edit and perhaps we can find some kind of consensus. By the way, the reference given above by you was also originally supporting the map that you deleted ;)Arcillaroja (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Arcillaroja, believe me the last thing i want is an edit war. We can agree by discussion, in the end this is all about Wikipedia and democracy :). I read about the description you provided, but for instance as you too pointed out there is at least one country (Greece) which also meets these requirements (as per the link you provided) and is not shown on the map or the list with population figures. If you could please ammend the map as to include the missing information. I am so sorry I dont have the technical skills to do that, but I believe you might have them and you might want to ammend the map. Thanks a lot.Nochoje (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have added the ammended list (population). I am affraid thats what I can do with my limited skills :)..If you, Arcillaroja could ammend the map, that would be great and much appreciated. Thanks again.Nochoje (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit short on time but I'll try. If you wanna give it a try I suggest you have a look at the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps Arcillaroja (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding Controversy

There is a lot of dispute about the term so I decided to add it. I hope to complete it soon. I also suggest to get rid of orientalising and marginalising terms such as Western or Eastern Europe unless used in justified context.--Rejedef (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it seems that the terms "Western Europe" and "Eastern Europe" can be sometimes highly controversial, so it might be an aspect that is worth pursuing (though maybe in a more neutral way than the version you proposed). How about proposing your addition here on this talk page and see if it is neutral enough to be included in the article or if it needs to be improved? mgeo talk 00:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I do agree. It became very controversial nowadays. Various organisations proposed different usage for these terms or suggested to ignore them entirely and consider Europe as one continent. Shall we add some media which actually use these terms in different contexts? I mean EU institutions, European broadcasters etc... --Rejedef (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree to add this subject to the article. But I think we should avoid adding statements that discuss personal opinions about the supposedly western character of single countries. This are always opinionated and motivated by nationalistic views and should be suppressed. Cherrypicking and related practices should not take place. We should also try to restrain ourselves from trying to do so. Arcillaroja (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, however we have to define clearly what is 'Western' first. I do agree it is inappropriate to pursue nationalistic ideas about countries, however regional (as regions of Europe) attitude is also an issue here. That attitude tends to overlook facts and over-simplify in even greater scale than the nationalistic approach.--Rejedef (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely the text could stay, if sourced. Otherwise it is OR. Pundit|utter 20:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Something balanced and well sourced could stay. It needs developing. He is trying to put the same text into the article on Eastern Europe. It has been moved to the talk page for development. At the moment, it is just an eccentric viewpoint labelled "controversy".--Toddy1 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you get my gender right? ;)--Rejedef (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it all right now? --Rejedef (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please could you add citations for the various claims.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. --Rejedef (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The claim that the Iron Curtain was the dividing line between east and west seems rather dated. Some people think that the dividing line between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires is more relevant to the present day. For example, at the time of the 1990s Yugoslavia crisis, this was the explanation in British newspapers for difference between Serbs (Orthodox Cyrillic-writing people) and Croats (Catholic Latin script people). Protestantism was an offshoot of Roman Catholicism. You will notice that Poles, Bohemians, Moravians and Hungarians are Catholic or Protestant people who use Latin script, and so by this logic are not Eastern European. Note that this does not necessarily make them Western European either.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hence the controversy what is Western Europe and in what terms it is defined. Would you like to help me with writing the section, please? Adherence to regions Europe can be also be fluid and based the sense of identity of a society as well as circumstances. See that. Hmmmm... On what basis are you drawing thhe conclusion that Central Europeans are not Western? I agree it is complicated with Czechs, Bohemians, Hungarians, Poles... They are very coherent (religion, politics and science) with vaguely defined Western Europe, western Christianity, although they were under Soviet influence for 45 years but these countries were actually industrialised even at the same time as the 'Western Europe'. The separation from mainstream Western Europe was not complete, according to Milan Kundera. George Schöpflin, professor of politics at University College London defines central Europe as Western while Samuel Huntington, a Harvard and columbia professor of political science includes Central Europe in the Western Europe in his book and academic article--Rejedef (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Cities like Yekaterinoslav and Yuzovka (in Eastern Ukraine) industrialised in the second half of the 19th Century. They were cosmopolitan cities - populated by immigrants, mainly Russians and Jews, but including Belgians, Welsh, Germans, English, Poles, and Germans. Unfortunately the great disaster of 1917-91 messed things up for Eastern Ukraine.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Bohemia was an important industrial area in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That is very interesting. Would you like to include it in the controversy section if you see relevance? If I would add it, perhaps that will be deleted, as last time.--Rejedef (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

On what basis are you drawing the conclusion that Central Europeans are not Western? Just because a frog is not a dog, does not mean he is a cat.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I would draw a very careful conclusion: suggesting there are many interpretations of Western Europe (see images on google for resources). Many scholars include it as the West while the UN, on the basis of regional voting groups rather than research suggested something else.--Rejedef (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• I doubt if many would describe people from Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain as Western European. They might call them Southern European - though the Greeks can also be described as Eastern European (Orthodox people who use a script similar to Cyrillic).--Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain were called Western European during the Cold war, at least.--Rejedef (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If they were, then say (a) who called them this, (b) why they called them this, (c) when they called them this, and (d) provide citations to reliable sources for this POV. Then do the same thing for other POVs.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You will be surprised. UNAIDS and other UN agencies include Spain and Italy to Western Europe. Also, see different interpretations on the Internet . Perhaps the key to that would be that these countries were in the Western European Union, as well as NATO and European Union plus they are Western Christian and participated in colonialism - that makes them Western. I understand that you will subscribe ti the point of view of Anne Applebaum --Rejedef (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think the section needs to give different points of view.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I do agree. I cannot think nor find everything on my own. This is why I need sb's help with it. It's tooo much for one person.--Rejedef (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• If you are going to mention academics, it would help to say who they are, as none of our readers have heard of any of the ones mentioned.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok!--Rejedef (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• What is the significance of the strange map? Is it relevant?--Toddy1 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This map is to challenge the associating peace with Western Europe. Of course we can use Huntington's (an influential Harvard professor of Political science) Western World/civilisation map.--Rejedef (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Is the caption the wrong way round on the strange map? Belarus is orange and Great Britain green. I think the last time Belarussian troops were in action was 1989. The The warlike British have fought many wars and insurgency conflicts since then. Current scholarship shows that Major Atlee's government tried to refashion Britain as a modern Sparta after the end of the Great Patriotic War. Furthermore since 1989, Britain has been the victim of many terrorist outrages and many savage riots. Ireland is shown as dark green, which would make sense if that meant that the the Irish were even less peaceful than the British (remember "The Troubles"). --Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean thee peace index map? It consists on many [[13]]. Although all these London riots, arrests as well as the vision of Scotland going independent, and Britain's involvement in Libya and other ccountries do not increase the factor. However, number of arrests in Belarus is very high and there are a bit to many weapons in the country.--Rejedef (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is almost 2 weeks since the discussion started. If there are no more objections, let's finally put the section controversy back to the article. --Rejedef (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We keep waiting for you to put in proper citations. You said you would do it, when I asked. But they are not there. Please either put them in by Friday, or we will remove the section from the article again.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've blocked Rejedef for edit warring for a week (for here plus at Eastern Europe combined). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

the one that should be blocked should be Toddy1 he is clearly trolling around, but trying to look a balanced person and contributing positively to wikipedia, when you can see in his words he is not. Just some what you can read in the middle of his words: notice how he ordered the countries: as PIGS. It is really controversial Portugal, Spain, Italy being not Western Europe? Who must be joking! Greece is a different story. Clearly Wikipedia is now a propaganda machine and becoming very unreliable, and you are woried about edit wars?! now Eastern Europe starts in the Ukraine? is that a joke? In a few year Eastern Europe will start in Japan, according to some people in Wikipedia. --Pedro (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Pedro - please read PIGS (economics).--Toddy1 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I Know that, everybody knows that, You know that. And you are proving my point. I dont do personal attacks, it is very unpleasant, it is not your opinion that I commented, but the weasel ways of your comments - ashes for a flame war. --Pedro (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I propose to move the discussion to one single talk page. Should we move all discussion regarding this section to Eastern Europe talk page? Eventually we could add the same section to West Central and East Europe. Arcillaroja (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy
World map of the Global Peace Index 2011. Countries appearing more green are ranked as more peaceful, countries appearing more red are ranked as less peaceful. The European territory of the West according to Huntington. The map represented the Orthodox East and Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) West. Through the centuries, the Great Schism caused determinant differences in societal structure, in ruling forms, in applied technologies and economic development, in philosophy and ethics, in architecture, in fine-arts and clothing. The term 'Western Europe' differs in terms of geography, religion, inlolvement in colonialism, culture, belonging to the Western civilisation, alphabet, human development index, currency and membership of the European Union, scores in democracy index and even time zones. The term's understanding is challenged by scholars including Larry Wolff, a professor of History at the New York University. Wolff argues in 'Inventing Eastern Europe: Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment that Western Europe was invented by enlightenment scholars. Major points to dismantle Western Europe as a region are that the disparity between Eastern andWestern Europe' is more and more invalid in terms of factual data: GDP, gender equality, corruption and peace index. There is a a lot of controversy when central Europe is concerned. The part of Europe stood separated from mainstream Western culture by the Iron Curtain for c. 45 yearsaccording to Samuel Huntington, an influential professor of politics at Harvard University. He includes Central European countries like the Czech Republic, Hungary or Poland in the Western world. Milan Kundera, a prominent Czech writer and a political activist in his 'Tragedy of Central Europe', he argued that central Europe is culturally in the West but politically in the East. After the fall of the Iron Curtain it came into question what is 'Western Europe'. Edward Lucas, an Economist journalist educated at London School of Economics, criticised the term , by challenging the East-West decision of Europe, for its inconsistency in his article and his TED speech in Kraków suggesting to ignore European divisions and if they are built, they should be based on facts. Oscar Halecki, a history professor of Colombia University, in his books 'Borderlands of Western Civilization: A History of East Central Europe' and 'The Limits and Divisions of European History' (1962) argues that Western Europe is wider (extended to Poland and other Central European countries). hWorld Health Organisation does not distinguish Western Europe in its report in the 2010 report. A proposal for a new cultural division of Europe according to Peter Jordan's criteria Media use the term Western Europe in different ways in different media ie. BBC.