Talk:Western world

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)

Dentren, who settles matters such as these? You are certainly correct in that he should be mentioned but definitely is not the final word. There are other edits I have made with multiple sources that keep being undone on this and other articles pertaining to the same subject, and it seems that it’s just undone because certain users want to keep the article swayed a certain way. Isn’t this about what references say? What’s the purpose of them anyway! I have created another discussion on the Western culture talk page entitled “Latin American inclusion” about the fact that Latin America is part of the Western word. It seems only Anglophone countries are “commonly thought of as western”. Who cares? What do sources say? Please check it out, am I missing something? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMD007 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The topic about Latin America is just his personal opinion, ONE scholar opining at the entire topic. Whoever did that, just made a misuse of his works, and let's be sincere here: There's a lot of scholars commenting about that, one was cited above. Whoever thinks Latin America is not a part of the Western world doesn't know that countries and never set foot there. It's not so difficult to find a diverse set of opinions, specially about that factoid about historically Catholic and Romance languages speaking countries with a lot of borrowed influences from other Western countries 'not' being part of the Western world. You don't need to be a genius to know that denying such countries like Brazil and Argentina their Western carachter considering their languages, culture, religions, political models, and history is just absurd. They received not only Iberian migrations, but German, Italian, Polish, Ukranian and so on. This affirmation by the scholar mentioned in this article sounds ridiculous to a person who knows that countries. If we can't even find sources saying that Brazil and Argentina are Western countries what more would we find? I saw a malicious personal intent in there, to add such a polemical and controversial opinion and not even showing a counterbalance to that. Recommend strong changes and collective work on that. I was the fourth editor (Out of 4) to see serious problems in that sense. Sawyersx (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair comment. At the very least Huntington's work is given undue weight. Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Does this even exist?

I feel certain parts of this article go too far towards implying that the "western world" is an objectively real thing, which it's not. It is a highly subjective perception of the world that is arguably inherently flawed.

The article is based on Huntington's opinion. The concept exists, but it's flawed here. You know such signals when you see Argentina or Uruguay excluded from that definition. There's a lot of sources to mention, but whoever wrote it, chose Huntington and that's it.Sawyersx (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

There's considerable agreement the West exists, less so on what its boundaries are. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of second paragraph from lede

At a glance, the second paragraph of the lede has strong consensus. What's the problem with it specifically? Has there been past disputes about it? --Hipal (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It's lies Hipal. There's a reliable source being used, which states the exact opposite. 2A02:1388:82:4D9:41FD:6282:F575:83DE (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, Ancient Greece was more Republican (the first western democracy) while Ancient Rome more Imperialist (the first western Empire). It's not weird that there's been such a prolonged consensus, because the last years in Europe have seen a shift in political power in favour of Italy (EU central bank, and EU Parliament, two most powerful EU institutions presided by Italian personalities). Also the United States are regarded, because of their extension, alike Ancient Rome, yet distinctly Republican not Imperialist. The above explains this wrong consensus.

I don't know about past disputes on this exactly, but surely this article has been disputed a lot for years I know this. 2A02:1388:82:4D9:41FD:6282:F575:83DE (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding here.

What do the other sources say?

Is Kurth's 2004 article still relevant? --Hipal (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I doubt there's other reliable sources that have a different perspective on how antiquity unrevealed. However, I just read that first source, and not even the whole of it. Could be added that even when I last studied history in school, I was always taught in ancient Greece there was some form of democracy, while that in ancient Rome such democracy was disregarded at some point in favour of a militaristic law-abiding Empire. 2A02:1388:82:4D9:BB6E:8BE5:F446:6E2E (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Exclusion of Israel in some maps

The two maps in the lead (this and this) are, as far as I can gather, from the same source. Why, then, does the first one not feature Israel while the second one does? Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Philippines

How unique is it? Perhaps mention of it under “Cultural definition” could be removed and replaced with this (mentioning the Philippines as well as Japan)? thorpewilliam (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request Feb 18

"In 1071, the Byzantine army was defeated by the Muslim Turco-Persians of medieval Asia, resulting in the loss of most of Asia Minor." To Muslim Turks. Seljuks were fully Turkic unlike some empires like Safavids or Afsharids and at that time there is no Persian impact on it. Its nonsense and should be change.

Wickelodeon (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request 2 March 2022

I don't know why I'm not autoconfirmed and can't edit the page. Been contributing since 2006!

I suggest editing this sentence in the introduction:

The West was originally Western Christendom, opposing Catholic and Protestant Europe with the cultures and civilizations of Orthodox Europe...

to read:

The West originally identified Western Christendom (Catholic and Protestant Europe) in opposition to the cultures and civilizations of Orthodox Europe...

The word "opposing" occurring between "Western World" and its definition, "Catholic and Protestant Europe" is confusing. At first read it seems to mean the Western World was in opposition to Catholic and Protestant Europe.