Talk:Western world

Huntington's map in the lede

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

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

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

Not to mention the flow chart below the map I find extremely suitable to graphically incorporate the lede on its own, as an introduction to the article. Doesn't anyone? MedicalWorker (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, it is still very illustrative and there is no better.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC))

I also agree that the map should stay, I would not take the example of the Philippines as so serious. But I'd rather see there a map without Latin America, if we take a broader concept, then we could also mark Turkey, Russia and whole Orthodox world. Without this, it is more accurate. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not a Black Lives Matter supporter. You are a fool. For the same reasons you elaborated for the map to be removed, the chart should be removed too. Because as Samuel Huntington had the Communists in mind as you say, he and Quigley he cites for the chart also had the North-South divide in mind, which is why he omitted African civilisation from his Eastern Hemisphere flow chart. A flow chart may be graphically suitable as an introduction to an overall history-based page, but still it is as unwelcome and out of context as the map. So I agree with removing both from there. The map is antagonising to Eastern Europe but the chart is to Africa. To pick images based on a source titled Clash of civilisations is a bad idea. 109.249.184.207 (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The map should stay. Jingiby (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The map should go. This is a page about the Western world, not about Huntington's book. Why should Huntington's obvious oversights mark the tone for the article? Why is the inclusion of territories wholesale? Take for instance those who insist on the removal of Latin America as a whole. One could easily make the case that a large part of the EU does not belong to Huntington's view of the West based on cultural and political allegiance. The whole of the former Warsaw pact countries within the EU, taken in opposition to those left outside, makes little sense in the construction of "civilizations." Croatia in, but Serbia out. The Baltics in, but Ukraine out. Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary in, but Romania and Bulgaria out. It truly makes little to no sense. Latin America out as a whole, for some, would be a solution, but what about the Southern Cone? You would be hard pressed to find someone there who would not consider themselves "western." Huntington has been extensively criticized and while apparently useful as a metric (for whom though? Those tied to the "Anglo-Protestant culture" Huntington was so fond of? It's quite likely Huntington's view of the USA were just as skewed by this), the constant defense of his position as almost irreproachable makes for bad scholarship and bad referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.29.36.198 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It should make sense if you knew just a bit about these countries and not base your opinions of dumb Cold War stereotypes. Croatia is Catholic, Serbia Orthodox. Estonia and Latvia are traditionally Lutheran and Lithuania Catholic, Ukraine is Orthodox. Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary are Catholic, while Romania and Bulgaria are Orthodox. These Lutheran and Catholic countries have had almost their entire histories and cultures shaped by Western countries, except for the Cold War era. It makes no sense to re-define their historical and cultural groupings based on five decades of foreign rule, which has had socio-economic influence mostly and rather little influence in culture. H2ppyme (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC: Map

Which countries should be on the Western World map? The Sr Guy (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Reasoning

I think we should end this conversation once for all, three map concepts have been proposed until now, these three map concepts are the below

• A map containing only:

• Catholic and Protestant Europe (Including territories that belong to Western Europe-an countries but are not in Europe such as French Guiana, the Spanish Canary Islands, Portuguese Madeira and many others)
• Most of Australasia
• North America excluding Central America, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico.

• A map containing all the countries mentioned above with the addition of Latin America, since according to Huntington: "In general, researchers consider that it (the West) has three main components, in Europe, North America and Latin America." and "Latin America could be considered, or a sub-set, within Western civilization, or can also be considered a separate civilization, intimately related to the West, but divided as to whether it belongs with it."

• A map containing not only most of Australasia, Western Europe, and the Americas, but also Russia and Turkey, Since these countries are considered "torn countries" by Huntington.

To keep this poll straight and simple type:

• No Latin America - If you think the first map with only Western Europe, Australasia and Northern America should be used.
• Yes Latin America - If you think the second map with only Western Europe, Australasia, Northern America and Latin America should be used.
• Latin America, Russia and Turkey - If you think the third map with only Western Europe, Australasia, Northern America, Latin America, Russia and Turkey should be used.
• Other - if you think another map concept should be used.

Notes:

• 1-The files that I showed are just to show the concepts of the maps, these maps can be edited and new maps created.
• 2-"Western" doesn't mean "better". (The Sr Guy (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC))

Poll

• Yes Latin America

• Huntington says that :"In general, researchers consider that it (the West) has three main components, in Europe, North America and Latin America." and "Latin America could be considered, or a sub-set, within Western civilization, or can also be considered a separate civilization, intimately related to the West, but divided as to whether it belongs with it."
• Huntington never considers Latin america completely different from the west in general, he only considered the option of Latin America being not Western the most appropriate, and useful "(only) for an analysis focused on the international political consequences of civilizations"

Now here are some rational reasons why i think Latin america is in the West but not Russia or Turkey

• Most of Turkey and Russia are in asia, which is not geographically Western.
• The main religion in Russia is Eastern Orthodoxy and the main religion in Turkey is Islam, while the traditional religion of the West is Western Christianity (Catholic/Protestant).
• Russians and Turks do not consider themselves as part of the West, while most Latin Americans see see themselves as part of Western civilization.
• Latin American countries are in the Western Hemisphere, speak a Romance Language (Spanish/Portuguese), have a Western religion as their main religion, contain a predominantly white (and mixed) population, and have cultures which are ultimately derived from Southern Europe, specifically Iberia.

(The Sr Guy (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC))

Australia is also not "geographically Western". The majority of Western Christianity cannot be the reason, then we could also mark for example half of Africa. I also do not see the white population as a reason. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Latin America - (please also read - Role of Christianity in civilization GizzyCatBella🍁 03:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• No Latin America or Latin America, Russia and Turkey - I don't like the map with just Latin America. I will try to explain again, in whole his book he is talking about Latin America as one of the major civilizations, not as part of the Western. For exaple: "In contrast, people in other non-Western civilizations —Hindu, Orthodox, Latin American, African —may affirm the distinctive character of their cultures, but as of the mid-1990s had been hesitant about proclaiming their superiority to Western culture." He also explains, that for an analysis focused on the international political consequences of civilizations, including relations between Latin America, on the one hand, and North America and Europe, on the other, the second option (not a sub-civilization within Western civilization, but a distinct civilization) is the most appropriate and useful. If we take a broader concept, then we could also mark Turkey, Russia and whole Orthodox world, they are also considered already part of the West or in the process of joining the West. It would also set a precedent for marking more and more countries from this book or others (South Africa, Japan etc.). Without this, the lead is more accurate. And of course, the duplication of images violates the rules of wikipedia, in the related paragraph (Latin America) it makes more sense. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• No Latin America — while the decolonization created here distinct political traditions. The connection with the West remains, but as Huntington recognized, the Latin American civilization as a whole remains distinct. It has largely Catholic tradition and Latin languages. The integration between the Latin American and the Anglo-Protestant parts of North America is highly tenuous. Jingiby (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• @The Sr Guy: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 4,700 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  ok, thanks for letting me know The Sr Guy (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Latin America - Although Latin America is notable for its cultural hybridity, I believe Western European cultural traditions are especially dominant, as evidenced by the overarching majority presence of Romance languages, Christianity (particularly Catholicism), and European demography (a majority of Latin Americans have some degree of European ancestry). Judging by the same criteria (language, geography, ancestry and religion / other customs), I believe Orthodox Eastern Europe can also be comfortably considered Western in the cultural context, though not always in the geo-political context. However, as evidenced by the dialogue on this page and even Huntington’s analysis, the definition and location the west can very drastically depending on the person and the context; because of this, It is important for this article to note the ambiguity of the term, rather than attempt to unilaterally define it. Jpthefish (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying that Orthodox Eastern Europe could also be marked the same as Latin America, right? So would the third picture with an extended concept also suit you? You are right, that the definition of the term can vary depending on the person, how would you more emphasize ambiguity of this concept in the article? However, we are now considering different versions of the Huntington’s view, not your personal view. The book shows, that the first picture is the only most accurate and unquestionable, but we could also take the broader concept - as you do not deny that it can also be considered Western. So what do you think? Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as the main map, I believe we should use either the original map with Latin America or the this map with Latin America and Orthodox world mentioned by TheSirGuy, provided we upload a new version in which you can more clearly see smaller political divisions (as mentioned earlier with Madeira and Canary Islands), which I would be glad to do. I believe we could also use different maps to highlight the different ways term is used throughout the article; the third map for instance makes most sense to be with the section of the article discussing Huntington's view on "torn countries", but I'm not sure about it being the main map. Jpthefish (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

To add to this, I believe the only way you can clearly understand the distribution of Western culture (or any other cultural sphere) is to recognize cultural hybridity. To quote a part of Amartya Sen’s criticism of Huntington’s book: “diversity is a feature of most cultures in the world; Western civilization is no exception.” I believe to categorize countries like Turkey or the Philippines as exclusively Western or non-Western drastically oversimplifies the rich cultural heritage of such countries. That said, creating a new map to recognize this cultural hybridity would likely prove to be very subjective and based on original research, which obviously isn’t in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Jpthefish (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Latin America. The Western world and Eastern world are defined by its culture, not economics or political stability. Otherwise, North Korea or Thailand would not be considered part of the Eastern world because they are both economically less developed and politically less democratic than Japan or South Korea. Yet, North Korea and Thailand are universally considered to be part of the Eastern world. Analogously, while most Latin American countries may be (generally speaking) less economically developed or less democratic than North American or European countries, they still share the Western culture (catholic religion, romance language, etc). The map even states what Huntington said, that is, that Latin America can either be considered a sub-civilization within the Western world or a different civilization related to it, and he himself admitted that most scholars "consider that it (the West) has three main components, in Europe, North America and Latin America." So I don't see any problem with the map of Latin America, which even includes Latin America in a different color (the map is not assuming Latin America is undoubtedly part of the West, but rather reflecting the diversity of opinions on the issue).James343e (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Latin America and Orthodox World, no to Turkey. As per the description of Huntington, which leaves some ambiguity on whether Latin America and the Orthodox world are a sub-part of Western civilization or different, closely related civilizations. The consideration should be there because Western culture is ultimately the Leitkultur of Latin America which is very visible in its history and traditions, language, religion, etc. And there's a good argument, as made by Hungtinton, on the Orthodox World rejoining the Western world (as visible in amongst others the EU and NATO aspirations of many of these countries) - which is also, unlike Turkey or Morocco, not really controversial, and even welcomed, in Western Europe due to the historical, linguistic, religious and cultural commonalities. Morgengave (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Latin America and Orthodox world, no Turkey. As Huntington said, Latin America can either be considered a sub-civilization within the Western world or a different civilization related to it, and he himself admitted that most scholars "consider that it (the West) has three main components, in Europe, North America and Latin America." Latin America has a huge Western European influence, especially Spanish. Majority of the Latin Americans speak a Romance language and believe in Roman Catholicism. And a major portion of Latin America's population is European to a degree, because of colonialism. However, Latin America does have a hybrid culture, but can be considered a part of the Western world. I believe the Orthodox world can also be considered a part of the Western world. But i do not consider Turkey as a part of the West, even though it is pretty westernized. Majority of the Turks are Muslim, Turkey does not speak a European language, nor are Turks European, and Turkish culture is not European anyhow. And geography wise, around 97% of Turkey lies in Asia. If you consider Turkey as a part of the West, then you can also consider Japan a part of the West too, which it is not, since it has Western influence too. So i do not think adding Turkey will be a good decision. But cultural wise, Russia and Orthodox Eastern Europe can be added to the map with the light blue colour, with Latin America. Danloud (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Latin America and Orthodox world and no Turkey.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC))
• Yes Latin America and Orthodox world, no Turkey. Horope (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Latin America That’s what I’ve always thought of as the west. ~ HAL333 22:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• No to Turkey. Latin America and the Orthofox world could be marked in light shade as semi-relevant.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• No for Turkey at least. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

What about Latin America?(The Sr Guy (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC))

Yes, no Latin America and Russia should be included on the map. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Latin America and Orthodox world, no Turkey. Omegalez (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Latin America, Russia and Turkey. I don't see the harm in including those places in different colors, assuming we have reliable sources for their relevance, and it seems we do. A lot of the "no Turkey" votes might be motivated by recent events, whereas civilizations and societies change at a pace much slower than that.VR _talk 12:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is a correct assessment on the "no Turkey" positions. Huntington considered Turkey's roots to be fundamentally non-Western (language, religion, culture...) but recognized there is (has been?) a cultural and political trend (to some extent) to modernize and align with the West (from adopting the Latin alphabet and secularizing to NATO membership and applying for EU membership), which explains why he considered it a "torn country", i.e. a country that could potentially change its civilizational fundaments longer term from Islamic to Western (and may have taken some steps in that direction). But even in Huntington's assessment Turkey still had a way to go before it would become Western. Morgengave (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Jirka.h23: Yes Latin America and Orthodox world, no Turkey. As Danloud said "But i do not consider Turkey as a part of the West, even though it is pretty westernized. Majority of the Turks are Muslim, Turkey does not speak a European language, nor are Turks European, and Turkish culture is not European anyhow. And geography wise, around 97% of Turkey lies in Asia. If you consider Turkey as a part of the West, then you can also consider Japan a part of the West too, which it is not, since it has Western influence too. So i do not think adding Turkey will be a good decision." - Turkey is not a part of the Western civilization, it's rather a part of the Islamic civilzation, so it should not be added to the map. However, Orthodox Eastern Europe, Russia, and Latin America should be added, because of culture, language,religion, and ethnicity. Gatesnaze (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Latin America and Orthodox world, no Turkey, as Danloud and Gatesnaze said " Orthodox Eastern Europe, Russia, and Latin America should be added, because of culture, language,religion, and ethnicity", while Turkey is not a part of the Western civilization, it's rather a part of the Islamic civilzation.Eliko007 (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Latin America. I dont think the Orthodox world makes sense at all, Huntington in his book is particularily poignant on how the orthodox world is a different civilization with a shared classical axiom with the West that separates at roughly the same time as the West itself, while yes it might be the closest cultural macrosphere, Huntington makes a lot of effort in elucidating how they are distinct and goes as far as to say that were russia to "westernize" (which to Huntington was simply how he perceived the fall of the USSR, the orthodox world would cease to exist and all remaining territories would have to go through an extenuating period of adoption. There is no textual reference nor explicit citative argument to be made regarding the inclusion of the Orthodox World, even less to imply a similar degree of proximity to Latin America, which Huntington explicitly tries to elucidate through his book in at least 5 different occasions.Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• No Latin America, Orthodox world and Turkey. These regions just don't meet the strict definition of Western World thus they shouldn't be included in the major map. NavjotSR (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• NO, the Ortodox world and Turkey. And soft No LatAm. For example if it is considered to ortodox world is one of the major civilizations that is it, hunting for sentences and hints what says different or could mean something, is wrong. On page 164 of that book it is stated to Russia creating, leading, and forming buffer states for the Ortodox world. Main point is the major civilizations, and everything other are just trivia. And this is the Western world article and focus should be on that.79.101.208.2 (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Discussion

• Comment Why is the European Union not shown on any of these maps? The EU is surely a Western-world specific organization. It seems bizarre to include countries that 30 ago were part of the USSR but to exclude, say, Greece, regularly and popularly described as the "cradle of Western civilization" (or similar) for centuries and also an EU member state, NATO member, and generally longer-standing "Western" democracy than is, say, Latvia. This business of "Catholic" and "Protestant" is also bizarre. How is majority non-religious Estonia a Protestant or Catholic country when the majority of its Christian minority is Russian Orthodox? How is Croatia more Western than Montenegro (both former "Eastern bloc" territories) and how is Hungary (long behind the Iron Curtain) more western than Greece, which has never been under communist rule? I would argue against the inclusion of (all of) Russia in the West, since the West is/was often defined as being in opposition to Russia/USSR, but the idea that Greece should be excluded on the basis of official religion but eastern European countries like Hungary and Poland included is just ridiculous! I'm in favour of Latin America being shown but in a different colour.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GPinkerton (talk • contribs) 23:44, June 28, 2020 (UTC)

Hungary (long behind the Iron Curtain) - How 44 years behind an Iron curtain has changed 1000+ years old country civilization? :) Please ... Also, Croatia was never an Eastern Block country. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Estonia is traditionally Protestant, meaning that the ruling class and ethnic Estonians post-Reformation were always Protestant. Nowadays Estonians are irreligious, but the great cultural influence of the Protestant religion and international contacts to the West remain. Because most Estonians are irreligious, then the illegally Soviet-imported Russian minority's religion is indeed the main Christian group of the country, but why should that affect the cultural belonging of the whole country? Like, about 3% of ethnic Estonians, the national indigenous majority, are actually Orthodox... H2ppyme (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Papua New Guinea? I don't have any sourcing to back up my view on this, but it seems really odd to include Papua New Guinea. Do any other scholars consider it part of the Western world? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Samuel P. Huntington consider it part of the Western world, but he also includes Kazakhstan in the orthodox world, despite being predominantly muslim, which is also weird. The Sr Guy (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

In Huntington's defence: when he first formulated his thesis in 1992 there was roughly an equal amount of Kazahks and Russians living in Kazahkstan (cf census of 1989), and Russian culture was generally more dominant. Three decades of Russian-ethnic emigration and higher Kazakh birth rates since then have quite changed the demographic nature of the country. I do agree on the strangeness of his including PNG in the Western world. Morgengave (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

So if there are no sources, maybe PNG should be removed from the map?VR _talk 12:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

We should avoid OR; our opinion is irrelevant. Huntington's work includes PNG and his work is at this moment the basis for the article. Morgengave (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Third map changed. It seems so far, that the prevailing view is to keep marked Latin America and Orthodox World, without Turkey. Meantime, user Bathtub Barracuda seems to have changed the third map without discussion. He moved Australia to category "torn countries", as well as Mexico. What do you say The Sr Guy and others? Do you also think that this should be reverted back? Wouldn't you also consider leaving only one light color so that it doesn't get unnecessarily complicated (Mexico)? Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if possible I would personally avoid any mention to "torn countries" to keep things simple, and would leave it only one light color, excluding Turkey as per wide consensus. I would also put Mexico in the same color than the rest of Latin America to not complicate things. And unless Huntington explicilty excluded Eastern Europe, I am not opposed to include Eastern Europe/Orthodox world in the same light color than Latin America, to make things easier to understand. Huntington said "most researchers see Europe (...) as part of the Western world", so in principle he wasn't excluding the possibilility of including Eastern Europe. So yes, Eastern Europe/Orthodox world in the same light color than Latin America, and Mexico in the same color than the rest of Latin America seems fine to me. And Australia should be back to the same color than North America, as it is widely considered to be part of the Western world as per other sources such as this: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/western-countries.James343e (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: The map should be reverted, as it is uploaded without any consensus whatsoever. The "torn countries" thingy should be avoided, to keep the map as simple as possible. Latin America and the Orthodox world should be added to the map, as the same colour, and Turkey should be excluded. Since almost 80% of the votes agree with adding Latin America, Orthodox world, and excluding Turkey. Australia should be of the same shade as North America and Western Europe, as it is widely considered a part of the West. Since Samuel P. Huntington's definition was before the Dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan is a part of the Orthodox world there, however, there is a reason for that, since Kazakhstan as a part of the USSR had a large Russian population, and had a much larger Russian cultural influence, after the dissolution, the Russian population has decreased magnificently, and the cultural influence vanished slowly. Now, Kazakhstan is a Muslim-majority country with a non-European culture, and language, and geographically it is located in Central Asia. However, it does have a fair amount of European minorities like the Russians, Ukrainians and Germans. Still it should not be included. I do not understand why Papua New Guinea was added however. Gatesnaze (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The map was reverted, Australia and Mexico back and only one light color. You're probably right with Kazakhstan, and as Morgengave said, things can change after three decades. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo are two Muslim-majority states, not a part of the Orthodox world, however Bosnia and Herzegovina does have a minority Orthodox (30%) and a smaller Catholic population (5%). But Muslims make around 50-54% of the population, so i do not think these two countries are a part of the Orthodox world. Kosovo is around 88% Muslim, so it definitely should be removed. Danloud (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

BiH and Kosovo removed. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

We should not apply our own judgement as that would likely constitute OR and POV. Instead we should lean on reliable sources (and avoid confirmation bias in selecting these sources). Morgengave (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So what do you suggest Morgengave (I assume you mean states Bosnia and Kosovo)? Regarding Kosovo, Huntington mentions it as "civilizational fault line", as the sustained peaceful position of Albanian Muslim Kosovo within Slavic Orthodox Serbia is highly uncertain. Bosnia is descibed as a cleft country. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

For Bosnia, Albania and Kosovo I believe there are good arguments in favor of a Western classification, and good arguments against. I suppose we could look into further statements of Huntington, or look into any noteworthy commentaries made by others linking to his work. What we should avoid is that we put our own criteria forward (like religion) as the deciding factors. Without sources backing it up, it will be always POV and OR. A potential solution is to just recognize the ambiguity or cleftness (if there are indeed good sources arguing for both positions), i.e. we could "hash" rather than "color" these countries. Morgengave (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

So you support Bosnia hatched? Albania is in his book marked the same. And as for Kosovo, I tried to describe the reasons above. Jirka.h23 (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as it is based on the original source material, that seems the right way forward. Morgengave (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

With my vote it seems now that there is a stalemate between only including Latin America, and Including Latin America and Eastern Europe, while I see no real reason to include the Orthodox World (which to me seems more like POV or original research) I also find a problem with representing both regions with the same colors, first because at least one has citative validity, and second because the two are different in how they approximate to the West. I think a single color is simplifying to the point of losing sensible information. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Arguably, this is not a correct summary of the vote as the Orthodox World was actually not one of the voteable options (the third option was the addition of Turkey and Russia, rather than the Orthodox World). This means that the first series of votes and comments didn't consider the possibility of the Orthodox World. The best way out is likely to organize a second poll on the Orthodox World specifically, which may also open a good conversation on source materials. Morgengave (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Option of the Orthodox World has been discussed since the very first posts, so I don't think there is a need to do another poll. With the opinion of Bathtub Barracuda, it seems to be closer to the danger that the prevailing opinion will not be shown. In that case, the best picture would be without any disputed territories - only a clear Western world. However, "Yes Latin America and Orthodox world" still has a large majority of about 13 votes. As Huntington wrote, the Balkan countries "see the great advantages of being part of the West and being incorporated into its institutions; but they also identify with their own Orthodox tradition". Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

Leaving the discussion about Latin America and the Orthodox world aside, does Huntington really includes Papua New Guinea as part of the Western World? because this source says that he doesn't include. The Sr Guy (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

So you're proposing to remove Papua New Guinea from the Western World? I found no mention in the book, except for the picture. I am not against it, as this work looks credible. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

yes, let's remove Papua New GuineaThe Sr Guy (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Georgia (the country)

Shouldn't Georgia (the country) be added to the Orthodox world? This also makes sense seen Georgia's aspiration to integrate into the West which mirrors the integration achieved by other Orthodox countries (such as Greece, Bulgaria, N-Macedonia, Montenegro and Romania) and the current aspiration of some others to integrate (to a debatable degree Ukraine and Belarus). Morgengave (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Georgia and Armenia was marked in the book as part of the Orhodox world and a source like the one above does not mention them otherwise (like PNG). I added them into map. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Cyprus

Would Cyprus be considered part of the Orthodox World by virtue of its cultural and ethnic connections to Greece? Or are there too many Muslim Turks in Cyprus (Northern Cyprus) for it to be considered that way? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Huntington considered Cyprus to be part of the Islamic civilization.1 Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

As parallels: Kazakhstan is removed from the Orthodox world (Huntington considered it Orthodox) and Papua New Guinea from the core-Western world (Huntington considered it Western). So it's reasonable to consider the de facto Republic of Cyprus (Southern Cyprus) to be Orthodox. All these changes should be supported by sources though. Morgengave (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that, any changes should be sufficiently justified. Jirka.h23 (talk)

Yes Latin America. It's hard to take seriously including the Eurasian region as "western." That said, I would be in favour of the full map of Huntington, perhaps with the tones muted outside of the European and American West. Eurasia, East Asia, etc. are obviously different regions within the wide umbrella of Eastern. Eastern being kore of a "not West" catch all. Also, it's strange that the map fails to label Central Asia with Russia. While they may have an Orthodox minority, their civilization is one of the steppe, the mongol empire, the Russian empire, the former Soviet Union, etc. all of which link it as most close to Russia and Mongolia or Eastern Europe and Northern Asia. Which Huntington duly noted in his version of the map. Well at least as far as Kz and Kyr. DxRxXxZx (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Orthodox Eurasia

The Orthodox world is Eurasian, not purely European. DxRxXxZx (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is only a society, cultural and pollitical level but not geographicaly. --Terlines (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't affect the issue as it's the same result either way. On the grounds mentioned, Eurasia is also the preferred term, note also, the growing Eurasian Union. DxRxXxZx (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you are confusing politics with culture. The culture of Russia belongs to the culture of Eastern Europe (Orthodox Christianity). Politically, no country in the Eurasian Union is in Western politics. In addition, there are countries of Muslim Turkic culture (Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan) that are part of this organization. In NATO, for example, Turkey is a member of the organization but is not included in the Western world since it is a Muslim Turkic country. --Terlines (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Russia's culture is not solely descendent of Europe (noting as well that Europe and Western are not equivalent, tho often Europe only refers to Western Europe.) Moreover, if this is the argument then the Americas should be revised and labelled Europe. As this doesn't make any sense however, Eurasia is the more appropriate term for a transcontinental stretch. Vladivostok and Novosibirsk are obviously not Europe, and don't identify as Europe any more than America does. Russia as well is in both European and Asian organizations, highlighting it's transcontinental status. So politically and geographically, there is no difference. Eurasian is the concise and appropriate term choice. Lets leave the discussion here however, and allow others to comment. DxRxXxZx (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Terliners has the point here. Regardless geographically Russia's larger part lies in Asia, the European cultural/social/political scope is meant. However, we have to know how the source/author expressed exactly this, and there may not be confusion, since we have to represent that interpretations that are in the given sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC))

Huntington???

Huntington's nomination for the National Academy of Sciences was rejected after he was accused of misusing mathematics and engaging in pseudo-science. Therefore his views should neither be given such prominence, nor used as the basis for a map.Leutha (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Leutha, even through Huntington's ideas are philosophical or pseudoscience he is influential. I think the main problem of the article is more that there is plenty of undue weight given to him. Its almost as if he is given the right here to define the issue here. He should be mentioned among a series of philosophers and thinkers who have provided their views on the Western world, for example Miguel de Unamuno. Dentren | ^Talk 15:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia elevating Huntington's dated and lowly-regarded map

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.

I am removing 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)

Hi Jeremiad, I have reverted your edits which removed the world map. There has been a lot of conversation & consensus-building preceding this map. This conversation can be re-opened of course, but I recommend we avoid unilateral changes until a new consensus is reached. Morgengave (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Morgengave, I understand your objections but I believe there is good reason to challenge the inclusion of the map urgently. It has been quoted often and in many sources online from wikipedia, but is not considered academically credible by most researchers, so I think the benefit of the doubt should be against it unless proved otherwise. I will seek to sum up the reasons below.

Jeremiad469 (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Fuller explanation of removal

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 on its own as a doubled up 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)

@Jeremiad469: Criticism to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory is not new (already existed in the 1990s). And there is also a list of arguments in favor. I believe many contributors to this article are aware of both. I think it's valid to re-open the conversation on the map, and enlist other users in it. I however don't see any urgent need to remove the consensus map at this moment, and I don't think you should unilaterally. Also, consider that the consensus map was reached after lengthy conversations involving many contributors. Morgengave (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Morgengave. Criticism of Huntington's schema certainly isn't new, but nearly all the points above effectively are, as they explicitly relate to specific disconfirmations of his scheme over the last ten years, when academic discussion of his work has already gone out of fashion. Although I think removing the header map is— a priority, both on the grounds of the prevailing academic view and recent disconfirmation, I do agree it is reasonable to ask for broader democratic consensus here before permanently removing. I would be interested in hearing others' views on some of the points above. Jeremiad469 (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that the more recent elements you bring are mostly relevant for the "Clash of Civilizations" article, yet not so much for this one. This is because the map uses his civilizational classification and not his quasi-deterministic thesis on clashes between these civilizations. Secondly, the map uses his classification including his nuance and reflections on the Latin-American and Orthodox areas, which explains why they are colored along. This fits with the trends you refer to such as the EU/NATO integration realizations/aspirations in many Orthodox countries. Also, take into account that some of the consensus-like criticism on Huntington has been included, which explains why Papua New Guinea f.e. is not part of the Western World on the map, whereas in Huntington's thinking it was. Morgengave (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Morgengave, is that a consensus map or map for which there is no consensus to remove? These are two different things. "Consensus map" imply some legitimacy. Dentren | ^Talk 16:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Dentren, the former. The current map came after lots of discussions and voting involving ultimately ~30 editors. See one of the earlier conversations on this talk page. This then led to the current/established map. I am open to re-opening this conversation. I just don't think (seen this context/background) that the unilateral action of one (well-intentioned/good-faith) editor is the right way forward. The best next step may be to formally re-open the conversation (with a formal proposal such as "remove the map" or "proposal to change the map into <option>" and involve a wider group of editors. Morgengave (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Morgengave, I saw the discussion. Given that the map and the undue wieght given to Huntington continues to be a source of contention, shouldnt it be wiser to begin thinking about creating a new map for the top of the page, one with multiple definitions represented, and not only based on Huntingtons reflections. Meanwhile the present consensus map could be moved down a bit in the article. Dentren | ^Talk 18:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Dentren: It's not up to me individually - I am just one of many contributors. I do think the right way forward is to involve the wider community of editors first, amongst others because the previous conversations and alignments were explicitly about what map to put in the lede. I still fail to see why the normal process (i.e. formally reopening the conversation, coming with new proposals and sources, involving the community) wouldn't be appropriate. If you have multiple reliable sources pointing to a different map, it shouldn't be too controversial or cumbersome to get support for it anyway. I am in any case personally interested in learning more. Morgengave (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

you are correct in that that is the right way to go. Since it would consume more time than I am willing to waste now I wont push much further. for now I intend to probe opinions in the topic. You answer has been vary helpful. Dentren | ^Talk 19:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Dentren: I understand. But even if you don't want to pursue it yourself, it may still be useful to share the sources or authors you had in mind so someone else could pick it up. Morgengave (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeremiad469, your view is certainly interesting, although there are few things that are at least debatable (China as a superpower, etc.). Your problem with the article could have several solutions; 1) if you provide relevant sources, another better picture could be created to replace this one in the introduction, Huntington's view could move elsewhere, or 2) we could have here two pictures, 3) Huntington's picture can be changed to include other people's opinions, 4) below the image it is possible to add some clarification to the caption, like that his view does not represent the definitive classification of the West (or something similar). Anyway, you should have a broader consensus on any changes first, as this topic has been previously exhaustively consulted. You could start by listing exactly what changes you want in the image and why, and listing all the relevant sources. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Europe and Albania

Albania needs to be included as part of the Western world. Even though the designation "Western World" is not precise by any stretch of the imagination, exhibiting levels of fluidity and being under continual renegotiation, considering the origins of the West conceived initially as a self-defined Graeco-Roman identity, and the re-circumscription of that identity under the overarching the realm of Christendom, the region, the peoples, and the ethnicity that constitute Albania have very much been a part of all these currents, from antiquity through medieval Christendom, and despite later being conquered by the Ottomans, Albania today stands closer to a European identity than any other. From any which way you slice it, the arguments in favour of including Albania as part of the West far outweigh any arguments against. Please be serious and edit the article to make this correction.