Talk:Western world/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Correct/Incorrect Usage

I changed a paragraph under the Economic section that included uncited, unsourced statements that using "Western" as a synonym for "developed world" was incorrect. I don't believe it's Wikipedia's job to say what usages are correct and incorrect, and there's no need to include such a judgmental statement without any citations. Briefly looking over the article, it seems this was the only part of the article to make this mistake. If someone has a source or notable figure that can be quoted as to saying that this usage is incorrect, that can be added in.

I changed the wording to say "This usage exists despite" rather than "This usage is wrong because...". Hyzhenhok (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Christianity ?!

Christianity is an Asian religion, created in Asia by Asians for Asians

And should not be definited Western !--82.134.154.25 (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect; I can only hope your statement is not indicative of contemporary education. The Catholic Church - East and West - has three foundations: Platonic thought, Jewish morality, and eschatology considered divine. Greek thought is Western, ipso facto. Jews are certainly a Western people, a tribe caught between the two founders of Western civilization itself: Mesopotamia and Egypt. Concerning, the eschatology, if you cannot accept divine transmission but instead look to those elements that can be traced to certain cultures, than you will see Zoroastrianism, the Egyptian cults, and Judaism, as your main harbingers; again all Western influences. I think a good reference you may wish to read is "A History of Western Philosophy," by Bertrand Russell; I probably ended up paraphrasing some of Russell in the above. Hope that helps.Tobit2 (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Both statements above are pretty much nonsense. There are grains of truth; e.g., Christianity did arise in what is technically "Asia", but certainly not the Asia of Japan or India -- "Asia" being a culturally and geographically empty construct, defined entirely negatively.

Whether Greece is "ipso facto" Western is a debatable point. Certainly a good deal of Greek thought went into Western civilization -- though, until the 15th century, most of it was second-hand, and afterwards, mostly taken from ancient Greek texts rather than contemporary Greek culture. The idea that Jews or Judaism are intrinsically "Western" is curious; the idea that Mesopotamia and Egypt are "Western" is absurd, unless the "West" is to be extended all the way out to Indonesia. The idea that "the Catholic Church, East and West" defines what is "Western" is anachronistic; it is certainly not true today. The dogmatic claim about the "three foundations" of Catholicism is a piece of doctrinaire puffery that has no place in an encyclopedia. It would be far more accurate to say that neither Judaism nor Christianity are Western or Eastern, but rather protean systems of thought capable of adapting to different cultural zones; however, that would not be especially encyclopedic either.RandomCritic (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Christianity may be the traditional religion of the west (I say traditional because science and Atheism seem to dominate Christianity in Europe today), but Christianity didn't start in the west. Therefore, it can't be considered a western aspect. Even if Americans did have an impact on the spread of Christianity in South Korea (as an example). Religion is something that can change from generation to generation. And it's something that is always changing in all parts of the world. Whether or not the labels are changing is irrelevant. It's obvious science has out paced religion in most of the west. The US is actually a country that goes against that. I read an article that said 57% of our country still considers religion to be very important. The only part of the world where religion (for Christians) is more important is Africa. That is why the integrity of this article in terms of religiousless is flawed. How can anyone claim the US and Canada are the same shade of religiousness? Yet Italy is more religious? How many Atheist congressman do we have out of hundreds in the US? None! Where is Canada's Bible Belt?

I think who ever put this article together did a lot of guessing and may have just their own bias interpretation of facts. We all do that. But we shouldn't revise Wikipedia articles based on opinions and hunches.

Recently, I saw an American-created article about the leaders of Iran and Venezuela meeting saying they wanted to go against western influence. I highly doubt Chavez and the Venezuelans literally said that though because it'd be like punching yourself in the face. Or slapping at the very least. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why Isn't the Philippines Mentioned

Our culture is pretty much more Western than Signapore, Thailand, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.195.74 (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

/media/wikipedia/en/d/de/Manilagovt.jpg Just look at this. Very Western. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.195.74 (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We celebrate Christmas, Halloween, etc. too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.195.74 (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Phillippines, Singapore and Thailand are not Western countries although I suppose it could be argued that Singapore is a creole of East and West. Being influenced by the West is not the same as being the West. As a Westerner I might eat sushi most days for lunch, learn Mandarin, dabble in Buddhist practices and watch Bollywood movies, but that doesn't make me Asian. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the Philippines are Christians, can speak English, like American food, etc. It's not Western but it sometimes is considered Western. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.40.226 (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Philippine culture is Euro-American, thus Western. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456399/Philippines/23753/Cultural-life Japan South Korea and other developed Asian countries are mentioned yet they are clearly Eastern. The Westernness of its culture pales in comparison to the Philippines. Including all Latin American countries in the tag as Western and excluding PH is an ignorant mistake. The Spanish language maybe lost but the cultural psyche of the Filipinos is far more western than say South Africa or even Paraguay. Philippines must therefore be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.5.36.149 (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Phillippines more western than Paraguay? That's a joke!

Filipino culture has been impacted by American culture. But we have not changed the culture. Many Filipinos can speak very good English. Yet it isn't their native languages. It's not the language you think in when you first get up in the morning. Excluding the Phillippines and including all of Latin America is not ignorant by any means. I'd be open to a map that'd exclude the Amerindian groups of Latin America like the Quencha and various Mayan groups that have contained their languages and identities.

Religion is not a good indicator of culture. Language is. I created my own simple yet true quote. Someone probably got to it before me though. It goes like this... Language is the head of the body. Without a head, a body can't survive. Without a language, a culture can't keep it's identity.

While Christianity may traditionally be the religion of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and the western hemisphere, Christianity is not exclusive to the west. I wouldn't call Arabic-speaking Christians with no European roots living in Egypt westerners. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

South Africa isn't really a western society.

The map displaying Western countries indicates that South Africa is a Western nation. I've been to South Africa, and only its white/colored minority and some of its black population could be considered Western. I wouldn't regard the vast majority of South Africans as Westerners in a cultural and historical sense. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus

I think Cyprus should be removed from the map at the top of the article. To say it is part of a firm definition of the western world would be a slight overstatement and one which is not supported by any external sources. The present-day country does not conform to several hallmarks of the western world, particularly its relation to colonialism (having been a British colony, and previously endured mass plantation slavery under Venetian rule) and its assignment to the "third world" during the Cold War era. Many European texts and writers, both recent and colonial, refer to Cyprus as "eastern" or "oriental". As a result, Cyprus is frequently considered to be an Asian state and part of the Middle East, Near East or Levant (including by the UN, CIA, Library of Congress, and encyclopaedias such as Encarta and Britannica). If it is regarded as European, an idea which has only recently taken hold, it is seen as part of "eastern Europe" or transcontinental at best. —Olympian (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it should not be removed.

Map

Why the map does not correspond to the text in the first map of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.211.9 (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing Map

The map displayed in this article cannot be defended easily. First, it appears to be original research and second, the Western World is not something that can be defined by national boundaries as they are drawn today. Look at the questions that are raised: Is Istanbul a Western city? Have fun answering that. Are South African Zulus more Western than the Berbers of Morocco or even the peoples of Ethiopa? Good luck on that one too. The map should be removed. In its place, I suggest a description of Western Civilization's founding cultures should be added: Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, and the Teuton.Tobit2 (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Istanbul is not, constantinople may have been (but as you see the first part its divided over east and west christianity), Mesopotamia certainly isnt. Heck even Greece shouldnt be as defined over east vs. west christianity and Orthodoxy is NOT western, even virulently anti-western at times (bosnian war). Moreover, South Africa is not western, especially since apartheid is over. even the former soviet periphery as west is dubious (although over the last decade there may be some ground), Latin America is also highly dubious (except perhaps the 3 Southern cone states. and so is Palestine/israel where the direction of it being west would only be post-World War with european migration.

map does need to go(Lihaas (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).

Israel and Israeli-occupied territories

There is no need in the main text to specifically exclude "Palestinian territories" from Israel. We could just as easily make the list meaningless by excluding aboriginal territories of Australia, etc. When the majority of English speakers think of Israel, they don't think of the Palestinian regions any more than they think of the aboriginal territories of Australia--they automatically think of the Jewish portions of Israel. That listing of countries is not a precise, GPS-fixed delineation of the exact boundaries of the "Western World". It is a general listing. As such, details such as "Palestinian areas", "aboriginal areas", "Eskimo hunting grounds", etc. are really inappropriate. Indeed, the Eskimo tribal areas of Canada and the aboriginal areas of Australia both far exceed the territory of the Palestinian areas of Israel. It's an unnecessary, and potentially inflammatory, edit. (Taivo (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Taking a second look at it, even a footnote is too much for this article. It's just baiting and pointy. It's too POV. I'm going to sleep on it, but right now it's just pushing an agenda that is inappropriate for this article. (Taivo (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Actually, the footnote is even more ridiculous and unnecessary since most governments don't recognized the Palestinian territories as being part of Israel anyway--they're either part of Jordan/Syria, or part of Palestine. That means that the footnote is even more pointless. (Taivo (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Is Freedom House's marking Israel's freedom ranking with an asterix that excludes Israeli-occupied territories [1] also baiting or is it accurate? I believe it is accurate and I find your over-reaction to a footnote and your accusations towards me very strange. --John Bahrain (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tavio, Your complain seems to be confused. I am not trying to only include "Jewish portions of Israel", but rather trying to exclude the areas of Israel that are under military occupation -- this is different that your understanding because (1) there are Arabs within Israel's 1967 borders and (1) there are Jews who live in Israeli settlements amongst the stateless Palestinians. This is important as the freedom of the +4 million inhabitants of the Israeli occupied areas do not have the same freedom as those within the 1967 borders of Israel. Israel itself does consider much of the occupied territories to be its territory -- in Israeli parlance, it is "disputed territory." Here is Freedom House's information on what they themselves term Israel occupied territory: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=180

The West Bank has been occupied for over 40 years now, contains over 3.5 million non-Jewish Palestinians who do not have the same rights and freedoms as Israeli settlers who live in their midst (and who are considered by Israel to live in Israel and there are Israeli municipalities that cover the majority of the occupied West Bank.) So, there is no Palestinian state and Israel has population living in this territory and it is considered by third parties, such as Freedom House to not be free. To include Israel without an asterix in a list saying that is is fully democratic is simply incorrect. Even Freedom House's ranking of Israel has a prominent note that it does not include the Israeli occupied territories in its assessment:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/inc/content/pubs/fiw/inc_country_detail.cfm?year=2006&country=6985&pf

For example, here is an article that states that Israel is the only apartheid regime in the Western World -- this coming from a former leader of a major mainstream Jewish-American group:

"Israel has crossed the threshold from 'the only democracy in the Middle East' to the only apartheid regime in the Western world." [2]

It may be inflammatory to some to state the truth that Israel is only half a democracy, but does that mean that we pretend the issue doesn't exist?

I think that an asterix that is similar to the one that Freedom House uses is only proper. I can't understand why we can maintain at least the level of quality and thoroughness that Freedom House is maintaining is in assessments. If Freedom House can be accurate and precise, why can't Wikipedia?

I also think that Taivo, in general this whole section is quite weak in that there are very very few citations for the claims it is making. How about we collaborate on making this whole section grounded in citations?

--John Bahrain (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't preach about Israel and Palestine. This is not the article for that or for making a point. This is simply an article about the Western World, which Israel clearly belongs to by all the definitions within the article. I don't care what "Freedom House" does, it's not relevant to this article and only relevant to Wikipedia in that it is one of thousands of sources. Elsewhere in Wikipedia Israel's relation to Palestine should be detailed, yes, but not here. That's my point--it's not relevant here. Look at nearly any atlas from the U.S. or the U.K. and you will see that "Palestine" is not included within the borders of what is marked as "Israel". There's no need here for getting into the issue of how Israel treats Palestine. Is it also relevant how the U.S. treats Native Americans or how Australia treats the aboriginals? No, it's not. This article is about the broad strokes that define the countries of the Western World. Move your POV to another article and make your point where it is relevant. It isn't relevant here. Just because "Israel" is mentioned in this article in a broad context, doesn't mean that it always has to carry an "asterisk". In some places that asterisk is relevent, but it's not relevant everywhere. This is one of those irrelevant places. (Taivo (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

You should familiarize yourself with Freedom House as it is pretty much the standard when one is look to determine which countries have functioning democracies and freedoms. If you are including Israel in a list of democratic and free countries (which is what is done at the location in the article we are focusing on), then it is completely appropriate to include an asterisk. --John Bahrain (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

One editor wants to add a qualifying footnote about Israel, that it excludes the Palestinian territories. Another editor thinks that in this context of a broad list that it is baiting and pointy since no other country has a footnote attached. See the discussion in the section above. (Taivo (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Taivo, I believe that it is best to include a footnote on Israel that states that we are excluding from consideration the territories it is occupying when we call it a free democracy and a member of the Western world. Freedom House, one of the foremost neutral bodies that look into democracies and their respective freedoms does include a similar, but much more prominent note, on its Israel entries that makes the same exception -- see [3]. I will also note that Taivo doesn't know what he is talking about because he claims in this edit summary that "'Palestine' is either separate from Israel or it's part of Jordan/Syria in virtually all definitions of 'Israel'" when that clearly isn't the case. My suggestion to Taivo is to rely on citations to make his claims as that should be the basis for productive editing of Wikipedia. --John Bahrain (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There's not a democracy on this planet that doesn't have problems, but this article isn't about evaluating democracy, but only about creating a broad definition about what constitutes the Western world. This isn't about poking a stick in Israel's eye every time it's mentioned in Wikipedia. Freedom House's opinion is not really relevant here. Go to the appropriate page in Wikipedia and poke Israel all you can within consensus. But this page isn't about the details of democracy, but about using a very broad definition to define the term "Western world". Israel's problems aren't any worse than the U.S. relation to Native Americans, Brazil's relation to Native Americans (which is pretty atrocious itself), or Australia's relation to the aborigines. Some of those South American countries have human rights abuses that make Israel's relation with the Palestinians look like best buddies. This article is about broad strokes, not about nitpicking details that simply push your POV. And I'm not talking about every definition of Israel--I was very clear that definitions in the U.S. and U.K. (this is the English Wikipedia) almost always separate Palestine from Israel in some way. (Taivo (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

I would argue that including Israel in the Western World is dubious on different grounds. While its Ashkenazi founding fathers and early settlers were Western European, Israel has changed a lot since then. An influx of Mizrahim and Sephardim following the 1967 War, a growing Palestinian population (if we look at all of Mandate Palestine, i.e. "Greater Israel", Palestinians by now form the demographic majority, while they form 25% in Israel "proper"), not to mention that 62% of Israeli Jews are Sabras, i.e. born and raised in Israel with little connection to the Western world. Add to that the increased religious radicalization (e.g. as evidenced by the participation during the Gaza War of military rabbis who urged no mercy against the "infidels" on religious grounds, i.e. jihad) and you get the picture. Amos Oz, the Israeli writer, said it best. I don't have the quote handy, but it goes something like this: "You in the West are angry at Israel over its conduct during the Gaza War (might have been Lebanon). That is because you expect Israel to behave like a Western democracy. But Israel is transforming itself. As time goes by, it will change from a Western democracy to Middle Eastern state." Based on the above evidence, I would say that that transformation is already quite far advanced. Lastly, Samuel Huntington, in his Clash of Civilizations, does not include Israel in the Western World. Thus, rather than the question being over footnotes, I would argue that Israel not be included at all. --Athenean (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment from previously uninvolved editor. I think you need to argue this out on the basis of what sources say. Which sources include Israel in the "western world", which don't, and which include Israel and also say something about the Palestinian Territories in relation to the definition. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Influence of monasteries and abbeys in preserving Roman and Greek knowledge

Wasn't the the main source of preservation of knowledge from these institutions in europe? The arab influence in transfer of knowledge was mostly indirect because they conquered the Byzantines and forced many people to move into Italy.

Not correct. Classical Roman and Greek knowledge was translated into Arabic and preserved by Arab scholars during a time when most of Europe was in a chaotic state of tribal conflict. Islam was open to scientific knowledge at that time.--Charles (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not true. Byzantine Empire wasn't arabic, and it existed until 1453. It preserved the most greek knowledge.

Nobody said the Byzantine Empire was Arabic, but before and after its demise knowledge was preserved by Arab scholars.--Charles (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Before and After? Byzantine Empire was born in 330AD and it was an existing state until 1453. Arabic countries didn't exist when the Byzantine empire was founded.

I wrote "before and after its demise". That should be clear enough.--Charles (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Historic Criteria of West in the European Continent

Somebody deleted the section. Source is not needed for evidences. 1+1 = 2 The "Earth is round"

Sources are needed.--Charles (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Europe is Western

Certainly the Orthodox world (eastern Europe and Russia) is as Western as South Africa and Latin America. This should be noted. I mean how different is it from your def. of the west really beyond superficial things like religion and language and its cultural hertiage. People in Eastern Europe are very western in their lifestyles. Please make a note of this! If this was the case then Latin America with its hybrid culture and South Africa with its hybrid culture should not be included either! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.212.69.210 (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing "western" about neither Russia nor Serbia. They are both slavic nations lagging behind the rest of the civilized world. They don't even have democracy, and some of them even miss the communist era. There is nothing "western" about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.196.119.66 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What is very western in lifestyle is arbitrary. Everyone in the world to some degree has been impacted by western culture. Yet we've been impacted by other cultures too. For example, lots of African-Americans give their kids Arabic first names. This didn't start until like 40 years ago. Another example is the popularity of Chinese food in the US, Canada and other parts of the west too.

South Africa is like a hybrid and a bunch of separated cultures in one country. It's a hybrid in the respect that there is a large diversity of ethnic groups. The only people who are truly a hybrid of traditions and ancestry are Coloureds.

On the other hand though, Latin America and the West Indies are overwhelmingly Christian/Catholic (and more religion than most parts of the west) and speak an Indo-European language.

The only exceptions there are Amerindian ethnic groups that still speak their languages in Guatemala and nearby central America, uncontacted groups in the Amazon (low population though) and the Quencha of Peru and western south America. Being of Amerindian descent in it's own doesn't make one Amerindian culturally.

Still though, the US and Canada have many regions of their countries where Amerindians dominate and are much less integrated into the general population (American Indian reservations, First Nations reservations). There is also the eskimos of Alaska who didn't have much contact with Americans/Europeans prior to the 20th Century. And of course there are native Hawaiians (Polynesians) who've mixed their culture in with the broader American culture too. Yet is anyone saying Hawaii or Alaska is not apart of the west?

It'd be more arguable that eastern Europe is apart of western society more than Russia. Russia is a large country that most people don't really consider apart of Europe. Russia didn't experience the enlightenment like Europe too. It's culture due to geography remained separated from Europe prior to the 20th C. However, Russian influence became more pronounced on eastern Europe during the era as Soviet satellites. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Map-falsifier

This is ridiculous, In this list there's not mentioned Philippines but all the Latin American countries are included. what is being as a divider between Philippines and Latin Americans or South Africans. Probably the author have considered their Mongoloid ethnicity too. There is Greece but not Macedonia! Where is Constantinople?

Actually what do you mean by this west? Is its border would change along with time? Is there have any role of history?

There was a map on the old article including Some (Japan,Turkey,South Africa Latin America) having a special consideration as West. It was much nearer to the fact. It's clear - a white/Christian/Capitalist propaganda. So this article must be changed or Please Upgrade this article by using that old map.It's for saving Wikipedia's Prestige from a ruinous sectionalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arungx (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Constantinople or Instanbul is the divider of the west and east. People generally don't consider Turkey to be apart of western culture since it's a predominantly Muslim country. Perhaps people make the same argument toward Albanians, Bosnians and some Macedonians.

The reason the Phillippines is not considered apart of western society is because so little of it's country (as in it's entire population, especially counting uncounted mountanious areas) was populated by European transplants.

When you think western society, it's very simple to know if the people are western or not with one question: Did Europeans en masse at one time move there and permanently stay?

Since enslaved sub-saharan Africans had most of their cultures, languages and ethnic identities changed and were converted to Christianity, they assimilated into the European cultures (ex. African-Americans, Afro-West Indians, Afro-Brazilians, ect.)

Europeans colonized much of Asia, Africa (especially in the late-1800s/early-1900s), yet their overall proportion to the population was small while temporarily living in various countries like Kenya, Nigeria, India and China.

Europeans did directly move and stay in modern day South Africa and to a lesser degree modern Zimbabwe and Naimibia. The same can be said to the entire western hemisphere, Australia, New Zealand and partly Israel.

Whether or not South Africa or Israel should be considered apart of the west is weighing out how much Ashkenazi culture has or hasn't dominated Mizrahi in Israel and how much impact the Europeans and their descendants had on black ethnic groups in South Africa. Interestingly though, the present black ethnic groups migrated to modern day South Africa, yet have contained their ethnic and lingual identities. And this would still be the case whether Apartheid existed or not. Since they are 79% of the population and most this 79% doesn't speak English or Afrikaans natively, I'd think of South Africa as a predominantly non-western country. People can't say it is politically dominated by whites, nor Coloureds or Indians (who'd be considered western there), because blacks control the politics of the country now. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Since when is Latin America not apart of the western world?

Beside lacking citation, that is why I took it out. It'd make no sense for South Africa to be considered the west. Yet not Latin America and the West Indies. Latin America is nearly entirely Christian, speaks Indo-European languages and are [is] or were [was] virtually all colonized by European powers at one time. The other major article on Wikipedia regarding western culture includes reggae (created in Jamaica, which it noted) as a form of western music. Yet that quote without citation isn't mentioned? Isn't that a stark contradiction?

South Africa speaks a large variety of languages natively. Whether or not many do or don't know English or Afrikaans as a second or third language doesn't matter since it's not their native language. The majority of the Phillippines can speak English due to American colonization. And most of the country is Christian. Yet no one is calling Filipino society western.

Western society doesn't equal wealthy societies. If that were the case, Japan, South Korea and regions of China and India would be a[ ]part of it. Are they though? No. You can't just manipulate words and definitions to fix contexts. The wealthiest parts of the world are called the developed world. Still though, there are plenty of countries like Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, which are considered a[ ]part of the developed world and are generally wealthier than the average country of the world. Especially Brazil who's [whose] wealth continues to climb.

It is also debatable whether or not Israel is a[ ]part of western society. 20% of the country are Arab Israeli's whom mostly are Arabic-speaking Palestinians. Half the Jewish population there too is of Mizrahi descent and spoke Arabic natively until changing to Hebrew which is a similar language and was less of a transformation than for Russian, Yiddish, Polish and German speaking Jews. It's a multicultural country that is politically structured as a western nation. Yet doesn't natively speak an Indo-European language.

Western = A country that predominantly natively speaks an Indo-European [language] country, either [is] in Europe or was colonized at one time by Europeans, was traditionally either Christian or Jewish (whether or not they are practicing or Atheist/Agnostic at this point is not necessarily relevant).

Anyone who changes this simple globally acknowledged definition (especially without reputable literary evidence) is ignorant. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could (please...) give any source for this "simple globally acknowledged" definition. There are a few African countries, that fulfill your conditions. For example, Angola (its population speaks Portuguses as a first language, it's been a Portuguese colony, and its religion is Christianity), and the like. Eliko (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never discounted the possibility of many people throughout Africa, Asia or other parts of the world as not being western. Angola is an arguable example. What is lacking in Angola being apart of the west though is that about 47% of Angolans practice indigenous religions and 40% speak Bantu languages natively.

Another country that'd be partly western (although leaning more than Angola, in my opinion ) is Mauritius (whom mainly speak a mix of English and French). The reason it can't be completely considered apart of it though is 52% is Hindu and many ethnic Indians have contained their cultural identities.

There are many places like the Phillipines, Israel, South Africa, Angola, Mauritius and others that can be argued. In the end, there'd be no right or wrong answer if it were yes or no. The only reasonable solution would be to judge how western it is.

However, it's quite evident that Latin America is about as western as it gets when it comes to the basic foundation of western society. Mostly fully Christian (most of which is Catholic and has remained that way for centuries since Europeans went there), mostly fully natively Spanish/Portuguese and French speaking (if Haiti or French speaking islands and French Guyana count as Latin America which is another debate).

It's not even a matter of it being an Indo-European language. It's a matter of virtually everyone in Latin America and the West Indies speaking a European language natively. Some of these countries (ex. Martinique & Guadeloupe in France, Aruba to the Netherlands) are even apart of European countries to this day. Puerto Rico is both legitimately apart of the US and Latin America. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The best thing we can due to give a basic geographical understanding of the western world is to illustrate how the foundations (ex. Christianity, language) correspond to each place. The map should include the entire western hemisphere (yet make notations of non-western influences that still exist among various tribes/ethnic groups throughout all the Americas and Aboriginals/Maoris in Australia & New Zealand). It should include all of western Europe, parts of central Europe and show a lighter shaded color for eastern Europe. This shade should be lightest in Bosnia and Albania. An identical light shade that is used in central/eastern Europe should be used for Israel. This map should not include Turkey, Russia and Occupied Palestine.

In South Africa, it'd be easier to show different shades for the country using native languages as an example. Since about 3/4 of both Northern and Western Cape speak a West Germanic language natively, I'd say it's appropriate to designate that area as western.

By the way, although not exclusively, another aspect that can be used to show how western a society is if it acknowledges gay marriage, civil unions or other gay rights. Even though South Africa is 79% black and they mostly control the politics of the country, gay marriage has been passed there. And it was not during the Apartheid era. I wouldn't doubt that Afrikaners and Anglo-South Africans were likely much more supportive. But the general acceptance of gays rights in their government is a sign that westerners have impacted the culture of black South Africans. In my opinion, the most racially and lingually diverse areas, a shade similar to eastern Europe is appropriate.

Japan, South Korea and the Phillipines shouldn't be considered apart of the west though (although the political and religion aspects in South Korea and the Phillipines should be acknowledged).

All of this can and should be debated. The main thing though is to not manipulate the facts. Anyone who associates western directly to wealth is bias and skewing the image. Every society has wealthier and less wealthier parts. I can't blame people to get angry on here when they see that being displayed.

By the way, I said it was generally acknowledged that Latin America is in western society because of common sense. If people don't know what languages are mainly spoken in Latin America, what religion is mainly practice there and what continent used to colonize the entire region, than I doubt they even know what the words western society mean. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Other places that an be included on a lighter shade are the current Spanish territories in Northern Africa (Cueta and Melilla), Guam, French Polynesia and Reunion. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be angry, although I hope you aren't.

Most of Angolans are christians, and most of the Angolans speak Portuguese as a first language, right? For deciding whether a given country is western, one should consider the majority rather than the minority, right?

Additionally, according to the article Angola, 80% of the Angolans speak Portuguese as a first language.

Anyways, I'm still waiting for your source confirming your "simple globally acknowledged" definition for a western society.

Good luck.

Eliko (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Angola

Take it up with this other Wikipedia article. It states 53% of Angolans are Christian. That may barely qualify for the majority. But it isn't most. Please provide citation to your quotes. Weren't you the one who asked me for a citation to a personal quote of mine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Angola

This Wikipedia article states 40% of Angolans speak Bantu languages as first languages. So how is it mathematically possible for 80% of Angolans to speak Portuguese natively? Perhaps 80% speak Portuguese fluently as a second language. Even that may be debatable though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Portuguese

Otherwise, why does simple Portuguese only come up related to Angolans?

What I am asking for from you is more simple. It's a mathematical statistic. You should have gotten it from a published reputable article or report. Yet you haven't shown us this? I said simply globally acknowledged out of common sense. There is no citation necessary for that. It is self explanatory that Latin America and the entire western hemisphere were formerly colonized by western European countries, that they speak their languages natively today and that is overwhelmingly predominantly Christian. What else is there to say?

What would lead you to believe I seem angry? Because I've written much? I really don't get where you're going with that. Please stay relevant to the subject. Perhaps you are the one who are the one are upset about something though. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I said the overwhelming majority of a country's native language should be considered. Not just a slight majority. I'd say at least 75%. I haven't seen anything stating that 80% of Angolans speak Portuguese natively though. I'm not saying it isn't true. But it is your job to support your own argument.

I have never said that language is the only aspect to be considered. I just said it is a good measuring stick. Language is the most powerful tool because you are practicing a culture just by thinking of words even when you're sleeping. Our message might be coming across differently to one another if we were speaking another language right now. But I do recognize that colonization, religion and political structure are important too.

I'm sure you can pick apart my statement and partly find exceptions to the rule. I'm not denying that Angola is partly western. But many Angolans still have in various degrees kept their cultures intact. Afro-Brazilians mostly speak Portuguese natively too. Almost all practice Christianity. Many even have descendants in Angola. Yet it's culturally obvious Brazilians are westerners and Angolans aren't.

Think of it this way. If your relatives come over your house for an extended visit, you'll stay keep your home etiquette. If your relatives invite you to a hotel they are paying for, you'll be adapting to their home etiquette. It's the same with the former Portuguese colonies in Brazil and Angola. Afro-Brazilians mostly speak Portuguese natively too. Almost all practice Christianity. Many even have descendants in Angola. Yet it is culturally obvious that Brazilians are westerners and Angolans aren't. You can get the vibe that Brazilians culturally have a similar Latin vibe the Portuguese, Italians and others have. Angolans are culturally distinct from that though. I'm sure you'll call that subjective. But I doubt many would disagree with me. Still, I don't see why you're so pressing for Angolans and others to be western. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I claimed you seemed angry (yet not were angry), not because you "write too much" (as you thought), but rather because you wrote (in your previous response): "I can't blame people to get angry on here when they see that being displayed". However, I was careful, and I didn't write that you were angry.
• You're asking for "staying relevant to the subject", but please note that I was only referring to a previous comment (about anger) made by you, which didn't "stay relevant to the subject".
• You say: "Perhaps you are the one who are upset about something though". Why should I be?
• Want a citation? I've already given the source, and it's very easy to cite from this source! As I've already said, see the article Angola: It states: "Portuguese is spoken as a first language by 80% of the population". Isn't it a citation? If you think this Wikipedia's article is not a source, then why should I think that the Wikipedia's article presented by you - is a source? And...as far as the religion is concerned, see this Wikipedia's article: It points out that 95% of the Angolans are Christians.
• You say: "I'm not denying that Angola is partly western", but how can you ignore the very majority (whether slight or overwhelming), and call this majority of westerners - only a "partly western" society? Where has the majority (or even the "slight majority" only) disappeared in your wording?
• I don't dispute the sources you have presented, but they, too, agree with me about the majority, i.e. that there is a majority! whether overwhelming or slight, it's still a majority sufficient for making decisions! If you live in a democracy, you are supposed to figure out what I mean: Even one single vote is sufficient for determining - by a clear-cut decision - whether a given democratic country should be governed by a right-wing government or by a left-wing one. This is the same with determining - by a clear-cut decision - whether a given country should be considered western or non-western. As far as Angola is concerned, our resolution is quite easy: it's not based on a single (crucial) vote, but rather on a clear majority of 80% to 95% of the population; However, we don't need that big majority: Even 53% constitutes a clear majority: Do you live in a democracy?
• You say: "I'm sure you can pick apart my statement and partly find exceptions to the rule...I don't see why you're so pressing for Angolans and others to be western".

Oh, now you got it! I really don't want at all, to press for Angolans to be western! On the contrary: I only want you to decide: Does your set of criteria (Indo-European language + Judeo-Christian religion + history of colonization) constitue a clear-cut set of criteria - having no exceptions? If this set of criteria mustn't have exceptions, then how about Angola - with its clear majority (whether overwhelming or slight)? However, if your set of criteria are allowed to have some exceptions (e.g. Angola), then how about Latin America (on one hand), and Japan or South Korea (on the other hand)? Maybe they are exceptions as well !

• You say: "I said simply globally acknowledged out of common sense. There is no citation necessary for that...Yet it is culturally obvious that Brazilians are westerners and Angolans aren't. You can get the vibe that Brazilians culturally have a similar Latin vibe the Portuguese, Italians and others have. Angolans are culturally distinct from that though. I'm sure you'll call that subjective".

Oh, so you got it now! In my opinion, the article must have clear cut criteria, and mustn't be based on the "obvious", nor on the "subjective", nor on the "vibe".

Eliko (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you sound like you'd make quite the prosecuting lawyer with your lack of citation for your claim that 80% of Angolans speak Portuguese natively or that the overwhelming majority are Christians. Where'd you get that from? So we should base the criteria of this aritcle on you making up statistical percentages out of thin air? That sounds so reliable!

By the way, I sarcastically said you'd think that is subjective. Of course you'd take one word and irrelevantly highlight it though. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why do you say again "lack of citation", after I did give the citation! As I've already said, see the article Angola: It states: "Portuguese is spoken as a first language by 80% of the population". 'Isn't it a citation - cited from that article (being the source for my citation)? If you think this Wikipedia's article is not a source from which I've cited, then why should I think that the Wikipedia's article presented by you - is a source for citations? And...as far as the religion is concerned, see again this Wikipedia's article: It points out that "95%" of the population in "Angola" are "Christians". So why do you claim I give no citation?
• By the way, it wasn't only the word "subjective" that you used. I highlighted other words as well: "common sense", and "vibe". The word "subjective" was just an addition to them.

Eliko (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I claimed you seemed angry (yet not were angry), not because you "write too much" (as you thought), but rather because you wrote (in your previous response):

First of all, this is not an English class. This is Wikipedia. This isn't even the main article. It is tacky to fix the grammar of everything I've written. While I'd admit it isn't perfect, many people have had plenty more grammatical errors. Most people also don't quote exact quotes like I have to. There is a reason most people don't do that. This is the edit page. Everything I've written is comprehensible. I don't need to go over every little thing in every sentence on the discussion board. Especially when you can see I've written much. Personally, I'd hope you have better hobbies than correcting people on that too. I asked you to specifically cite what it was you thought seemed angry. You didn't. Why?

"I can't blame people to get angry on here when they see that being displayed".

And what would lead you to believe I was personally angry about this? I'm not from Latin America. It is not personal to me whether or not someone considers this region apart of the western world. The point I made though was that it is extremely manipulative for someone to change the definition of western to developed. It sounds like a bias thing someone from a wealthier western country would say. As I said, every cultural and geographic region has their wealthy, average and poor regions. That is what the developed, developing and underdeveloped maps are for.

However, I was careful, and I didn't write that you were angry.

Telling someone they seem angry is practically the same thing as saying they are angry. There is no purpose of telling someone they seem angry if you didn't think they were.

You're asking for "staying relevant to the subject", but please note that I was only referring to a previous comment (about anger) made by you, which didn't "stay relevant to the subject".

It was relevant to the subject. Do I need to draw out every sentence to such a simplistic level? I said I'd understand how people can get angry due to ignorance. The ignorance being people manipulatively saying Latin America isn't apart of the western world because it isn't as wealthy as North America, Western Europe and Oceania.

While it may not be exclusively, another thing that defines the western world is literal geography. The Americas and the western hemisphere are the most western part of this world. I know that'd exclude Australia, New Zealand & parts of Oceania, Israel (debatable) and South Africa (debatable). That is why I said it wasn't exclusively geographically restricted.

Another question is what cultural region is Latin America apart of it isn't western society? No one ever gives that answer. Most people wouldn't argue the Catholic church is a symbol of western society. Yet the Spanish inquisition isn't apart of that history? Like the British, Dutch and French, the Spanish and Portuguese are western Europeans who colonized other parts of the world and spread the same religion. Sometimes on the same continent. Yet they now not apart of western civilization? I don't think there are many intelligent people out there who'd be able to refute that.

You say: "Perhaps you are the one who are upset about something though". Why should I be?

Because you seem defensive. You seem to be playing more of devil's advocate than directly supporting your own argument.

As I've already said, see the article Angola: It states: "Portuguese is spoken as a first language by 80% of the population". Isn't it a citation?

The actual quote said it needed citation. I just deleted it. Until citation is provided, it shouldn't be posted. I don't believe that'll be able to be proven either since it'd contradict the quote cited below.

By the way, Wikipedia independently is not a reliable source. There is a reason professors don't want their students using this site as a direct reference. Anyone can write anything they want. So much slips through the cracks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Angola

Of the 60% Portuguese native speakers, half could speak only Portuguese, while the other half spoke a Bantu language as a second tongue.[1]

Go back to the article if you'd like to see the citation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country

Where is the citation? I checked. There is none. Someone average Joe might have put that in. Maybe he was bias toward Christians. It is as good as made up. You can say the same thing about the 53% figure I gave. These stark statistical gaps show Wikipedia's reliability. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one until some literary evidence is shown.

You say: "I'm not denying that Angola is partly western", but how can you ignore the very majority (whether slight or overwHelming), and call this majority of westerners - only a "partly western" society? Where has the majority (or even the "slight majority" only) disappeared in your wording?

Once again, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I don't think you are intentionally do that with this though. I say partly western because they've acquired more permanent western influence than other African societies. I think one can argue the same thing about black South Africans and Filipinos. As I also stated, native language isn't the only thing to consider. In my opinion, it is more important than religion. Religion can change with aggressive missionaries. Than it can change back. Language is something that won't leave your brain. Even most people horrible cases of Alzheimer's rarely lose their native language.

I don't dispute the sources you have presented, but they, too, agree with me about the majority, i.e. that there is a majority! W hether overwhelming or slight,

Who is the majority in the religion articles? One person typing in 95% and another typing it ~53%? The article showing that 60% are native Portuguese speakers is cited. You've ignored that source and relied on an unsourced botched up stat in your argument.

If 53% of Angola is Christian (something we apparently do or don't know if is true), that is not unique to Africa. Most of the non-Christians in their country adhere to indigenous traditional Angolan religions. And if it were as much as 46-47%, that'd be very high for modern sub-Saharan Africa.

http://www.bcnn5.com/2010/06/the-worlds-most-religious-continent-africa-what-weve-learned.html

This map here (from a 2010 article) shows 57% of Africa as Christian. 53% would actually be slightly below average for Christianity and well below average for Sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, you can't say both sources agree with you. Christianity is not unique in Angola in comparison to the rest of her region. You'd have to try to make the argument that all predominantly Christian countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are western in make the argument that Angola is. I doubt you or anyone else is trying to do that though.

As I said before, Christianity is not exclusive to Europe, Australia and the western hemisphere. Perhaps the reason there is such a variation in the those two stats we saw (47% indigenous beliefs vs 5% indigenous beliefs ; 95% Christian vs 53% Christian) is because Angolans mix the two religions together and they don't clearly define if they are one or the other.

Even one single vote is sufficient for determining - by a clear-cut decision - whether a given democratic country should be governed by a right-wing government or by a left-wing one. This is the same with determining - by a clear-cut decision - whether a given country should be considered western or non-western.

You're really branching off into another area with this. I'm not saying I mind though. Truthfully, many of the countries in this region of the world are yet to be autonomous in everything except for title. The US governments can and has put dictators and ignored other dictators that don't correlate to their political and economic interests. Sub-Saharan Africa is no exception to this. I am American and I know this. The modern political structures of these countries often resemble that of their former European powers because those European countries helped structure their governments. Most country's former colonial power didn't cut ties to those countries. The locals may think it is more economically beneficial (and for many countries it is). Angola and many other African countries (not just sub-Saharan Africa) have been very impacted by a variety of European cultures. They still have not lost their cultural identities though.

When people from sub-Saharan Africa were brought captive to the Americas, they became westerners. They had a variety of impacts on the new cultures they moved to (ex. Jamaican Patois, Haitian Creole and Gullah languages, Santeria religion, foods). They still nonetheless became members of the new western cultures.

As far as Angola is concerned, our resolution is quite easy: it's not based on a single (crucial) vote, but rather on a clear majority of 80% to 95% of the population; However, we don't need that big majority: Even 53% constitutes a clear majority: Do you live in a democracy?

Who is the judge of that? Hypothetically, in a couple decades, if Israel went from being 53% Jewish and 47% Muslim to 47% Jewish and 53% Muslim within a couple years, does that constitute saying Israel once was a Jewish state, yet now a Muslim state? No. It'd mean Israel is a multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multi-lingual country (which it already is). If Republicans win one election and Democrats win the next in the US by a margin of 5%, does that change the country from totally being a Republican one to becoming a Democrat one? No. It wouldn't negate all the Republican Congressman, senators and governors just because the general population barely voted a majority in one election.

Oh, now you got it! I really don't want at all, to press for Angolans to be western! On the contrary: I only want you to decide: Does your set of criteria (Indo-European language + Judeo-Christian religion + history of colonization) constitue a clear-cut set of criteria - having no exceptions?

There are exceptions. Each country has to be evaluated case by case. Perhaps regions and ethnic groups too.

According to my criteria, within the realm of native languages, a country that speaks an Indo-European language natively (or more specifically a western European) would have to be well above 60% to be considered western. It isn't entirely exclusive though. For example, only 60% of Guatemala speaks Spanish as a 1st language (that is from Wikipedia without citation though).

Personally though, I do believe it is possible for people to have 2 native languages. And perhaps more in rare cases. This needs to be considered when tabulating demography for language speakers. Whether due to intermarriage or being a lingual minority within a larger society. I'm yet to personally meet a born-and-raised Guatemalan who can't speak fluent Spanish. Many Cajuns and Acadians in New Brunswick & Maine can speak, think, read and write in English and French from young ages without favoring one or the other.

However, I've stated there are exceptions to this rule. Most of Israel does not speak a European language natively. Many don't speak it secondly or thirdly either. Yet I'd say this is a western country. Even many of those who do so speak Russian (Russia is not apart of the western world and is arguably not apart of Europe). The reason I'd say Israel leans is split between a western and eastern identity (although not entirely) because it was largely directly populated by European Jews who eventually took political country of the modern country. Many of the Mizrahi Jews have mixed with the Ashkenazis.

The linguistic aspect has leaned more toward the culture of Mizrahi Jews. Neither spoke Hebrew natively. Hebrew is a Semitic language. The transition had to have been less burdening for the native Arabic speaking Jews. Plus, it is a liturgical religion. The Middle East is obviously a more religious region than Europe. So I'd imagine it would have promoted North African/Middle Eastern Jews to know Hebrew more.

However, the political and social aspect has leaned more toward a western identity. For example, they participate in European soccer competitions because all of their neighbors won't allow them to. The country recognizes women's rights (especially as soldiers) and homosexuals even better than many legitimate western countries. As the Palestinian population rises in Israel though, Israel will lean more Middle Eastern than western. Especially if Zionism loses it's taste within the Jewish Israeli population (which it already has with much of the youth and likely will continue to).

I'd also say Liberia and Sierra Leone are partial western societies. That is despite 5-10% of those countries being Americo-Liberians or Krio. These countries are and have heavily controlled by those ethnic groups. I wouldn't say these countries as a whole lean toward western though. Just partly. Members of these ethnic groups can be considered westerners though.

However, if your set of criteria are allowed to have some exceptions (e.g. Angola), then how about Latin America (on one hand), and Japan or South Korea (on the other hand)? Maybe they are exceptions as well !

I've noted there are exceptions that go both ways. One toward saying native-born people from western Europe/the Americas/Australia-New Zealand are partly non-western. Another toward saying people in Africa, Asia and the Middle East (mainly Israel) are partly-western.

There is no need to consider Latin America an exception to western society. They clearly are apart of it. They are as much apart of western society as North America is. The only thing that varies is modern wealth. As I've said, wealth and culture are not the same thing. Some people from North America, Europe and Australia have blurred the definitions of western and developed to make it seem like the two terms are mutually exclusive. They fabricate this image to promote a wealthier image for their society.

If Latin America weren't apart of western society and Japan & South Korea were, the term western world would become obsolete. This isn't the case though. Like Africa, Japan South Korea & the Philippines have been effected by Europe and/or the US. But they have contained their cultural identities. Especially Japan where Christianity never really made it and most people can't speak a European or second language there.

Latin America may have exceptions in the same way North America does. The Maya and Quencha people being examples of multicultural (western and non-western) identities just like Eskimos and American Indians on geographically isolated reservations (where their languages still exist to some degree). The groups of the Amazon that haven't been contacted shouldn't be considered western though.

You say: "I said simply globally acknowledged out of common sense. There is no citation necessary for that...Yet it is culturally obvious that Brazilians are westerners and Angolans aren't. You can get the vibe that Brazilians culturally have a similar Latin vibe the Portuguese, Italians and others have. Angolans are culturally distinct from that though. I'm sure you'll call that subjective".

You never said what I said wasn't true though. I was right that you were subjective. What word would you like for me to use to replace vibe? How are you going to deny the impact of cultural mannerisms on their cultural identity?

In my opinion, the article must have clear cut criteria, and mustn't be based on the "obvious", nor on the "subjective", nor on the "vibe".

I respect your opinion. It isn't that simple though. It'd be nice if it were. If you don't want to count countries that are partly western (ex. South Africa, Israel), they don't need to be on the picture of a map. We can show a map of countries that were directly colonized and heavily permanently migrated to by Europeans. This will go hand-in-hand with language and religion. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I meant it is not simple to have clear cut criteria. Not the second part of your statement above. I think native language and mass populations of Europeans permanently moving to colonies/former colonies sets a precedent though. What would you suggest be used if you disagree? Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. I only wanted to study your criteria: I've been trying to challenge them by giving counter instances like Angola (Cape verde being another counter example in Africa), and by checking out whether your criteria per se (without any "vibe" or "common sense") are sufficient for making the big difference between Latin America and Angola/Cape Verde.

Generally speaking, I accept your opinion (if we ignore some slight differences between us). Notice that I'm an uninvolved editor. Anyways, why don't you change the article according to your criteria? I'll support you, so you can feel free. By the way, As an American, how do you know so much about so many countries and cultures, like South Africa, Latin America, Israel, the Maya and Quencha people, and so on? Eliko (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I understand what you're getting at than. I don't blame you to challenge it. I know they'll be some holes. I don't think the holes are large enough to change the overall message I'm saying though. The contradictions you've displayed are not extreme either. In the case of Cape Verde, it is. I'd consider Cape Verde as a western nation. The reason being there aren't really any indigenous African languages or religions there today. Except for some recent African immigrants.

Cape Verde is ~600 kilometers / ~375 miles off the west coast of Africa. There were no inhabitants there before the Portuguese got to it. Like how indigenous Africans forcibly lost their culture in Brazil when they were taken captive away from home, it is the same thing in Cape Verde. 78% of people in Cape Verde meztiços (part Portuguese / part African ancestry). This would mean that Portuguese people permanently settled in this area (which is a point I've emphasized.

Unlike Cape Verde though, most of Angola's population is indigenous to the region and has kept their ethnic/cultural identities intact. Portuguese people made up a much smaller percentage of Angola's population when it was a colony and became much less when most left after the Portuguese colonial war ended.

In general, I'd rank the following in order when judging how western a non-western/central European country is. In my opinion, the first 2 are much more important than the last 2. I'm sure there are others who feel differently and that is okay.

1) Did the colonizers heavily move to their colonies and permanently stay?

2) What kind of an impact did they make on the native languages of the indigenous peoples?

3) What kind of an impact did those colonizers and Christian missionaries have on the place?

4) What kind of political structure does the government have?

I think of it as in a Am I in your home and have I changed your lifestyle? style. In my opinion, human migration is the biggest contributor to the cultural norms and values of a society. Political structure is heavily impacted by colonization (even if people didn't heavily move there). It is impacted by globalization. Countries want their economies to improve and they may see this as the right way.

As an American though, I do not feel anymore right to consider myself a westerner than someone from Latin America because they too have the history of being colonized by a western European Christian nation. Until people say Spain and Portugal are not apart of the west (which would seem clueless to most people), I have no reason to change my opinion.

Anyways, why don't you change the article according to your criteria?

I will soon.

As an American, how do you know so much about so many countries and cultures, like South Africa, Latin America, Israel, the Maya and Quencha people, and so on?

I didn't get it from the American education system haha I do a lot of independent research. I study Sociology and I've always been interested in studying geography and languages. I plan on joining the US Peace Corp in a couple of years so I know it is important to have thorough knowledge about the world. Where are you from? Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Your interesting position seems to be well-reasoned, and I accept it. As for your personal question about me, you can email me if you wish. Anyways, I, too, am interested in geography (mainly political geography) and languages (I'm a linguist). Good luck, take care, all the best. Eliko (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Generally when speaking of the "Western World" it is usually in reference to culture. If we are talking about geography then South America would be included and most of Europe would not. The Western World or Western Civilization are countries where their cultural beliefs and customs were largely influenced by Greco-Roman beliefs. Eastern Europe and South America are generally not considered part of Western Civilization. According to the Princeton University website [wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn], Western Civilization is defined as Western Europe, the United States and Canada. This corresponds with my own college studies on the subject. Although linguists and religion are certainly good indicators of culture, they are not definitive. Latin America has been heavily influenced by Mesoamerican culture and is its own distinct cultural group. Eastern Europe, although part of the European Union is also considered a distinct cultural group. The United States and Canada were not heavily influenced by the native populations as they were largely wiped out by the Western Europeans. Although the hypothesis that the "Western World" should be considered countries that speak European languages, are Christian and were otherwise heavily influenced by "European countries" is a solid one, I did not see anything in the references that stated South American countries are considered part of the Western World. On the contrary, the references tend to indicate Latin America and Eastern Europe are not included in Western Civilization [^ "The World of Civilizations". S02.middlebury.edu. Retrieved 2011-05-06.;^ Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996).]. It appears that the current consensus of cultural scholars is that Latin America and Eastern Europe are distinct cultural groups and should not be included as part of the Western World. Also this article should probably be combined with the "Western Civilization" article, unless they are being considered as two separate ideas. Currently though they both have the exact same references, discussion and similar topics. Legion211 (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Legion, Do you have any sources that support your statement regarding Eastern Europe? (Eastern Europe, although part of the European Union is also considered a distinct cultural group) It's not an attack... I'm just interested in getting more information about it. Arcillaroja (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, and I would not consider any polite discussion an attack. Did you check the references I mentioned in my post? Princeton University website (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&s=Western+culture, and also two of the references listed at the bottom of the article, from the Other Views section of the article (^ "The World of Civilizations". S02.middlebury.edu. Retrieved 2011-05-06. and ^ Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996).). I believe those references show contemporary scholars do not consider Latin America or Eastern Europe as belonging to "Western Civilization". The only references that seem to address what the article's topic is appear to be in the Other Views section. If there is a debate among scholars, as the Other Views heading in the article seems to suggest, then both views should be presented; however, the Other Views section seems to be more in line with the consensus of contemporaries in the field, rather then a widespread opposing view.

• Also the references cited in the first paragraph of the article, ^ a b Thompson, William; Joseph Hickey (2005). Society in Focus. Boston, MA: Pearson. 0-205-41365-X. ^ a b "Embassy of Brazil - Ottawa". Brasembottawa.org. Retrieved 2011-05-06.^ a b Falcoff, Mark. "Chile Moves On". AEI. Retrieved 2011-05-06. do not appear to make any claim that those regions (including Eastern Europe) are considered part of Western Civilization, as the paragraph contends. The Brazilian website and the "Chile Moves On" article both show that Brazil and Chile were "heavily influenced" by Western Civilization, but make no assertion that they are part of it. The text "Society in Focus" appears to be largely about individual interactions in life http://www.ablongman.com/samplechapter/020541365X.pdf; however, I only have limited access to the text. If there is a specific section in the text that covers the extent of the "Western World" then those pages should be cited in the reference per uniformed citation styles, and Wikipedia Wikipedia:Citing sources. This article seems to be more of a thesis than an encyclopedia article in that the author seems to be making a case for why regions should be considered part of the "Western World" rather then summarizing the accepted consensus of contemporary scholars in the field. Legion211 (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Since this subject seems contentious I wanted to post here before editing the article to open a discussion to allow any evidence counter to what I presented. In addition to the above evidence from my two previous paragraphs a quick internet search also returned this article, http://www.mmisi.org/ir/39_01_2/kurth.pdf. All the articles I have presented mention or show that Latin America and Eastern Europe are their own cultural group and region, not included in the term of the "Western World". Also the "Western World" seems to be a synonym for "Western Civilization", which has now been redirected to "Western Culture". Can anyone provide a definition for the "Western World" that is separate and distinct from "Western Civilization"? These articles should be considered for combination. At the very least I am going to edit this article to include only the areas deemed part of the "Western World" by the sources I have already indicated unless someone presents evidence to the contrary. Legion211 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is Latin American not being counted as the western world in the economics section?

The article should remain consistent. As we've discussed in other areas, it is obvious that Latin America shares all the same cultural influences that the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand do. One, governments and political systems that were designed by western European colonists who directly moved there en masse and/or brought African slaves who they forcbily stipped the cultures of. Two, countries that predominantly natively overwhelmingly speak a western European language. Three, a country that traditionally has a mostly Christian or Jewish background. Latin America falls into all three. The countries of Israel, South Africa, Singapore, Angola and others would only qualify for part of these. These are undeniably the core foundations of the western world. If you want to emphasize wealth (which is not cultural), than reserve it for the developed world page.

How about this? If Latin America isn't in the western world, what culture are they apart of? And they'd mysteriously have all these identical characteristics that other former European colonies do?

I added this. Unless someone can provide an argument, please do not change it. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

All of these countries listed are scattered around the globe. And I love how "Israel" is exclusively considered a Western country (Although, Israel is actually NOT a country). Let's face it! The word "West" has become synonymous with developed and/or Christian. Bosnia, a European country is by all means considered West. Lebanon, also a mix of Christians and Muslims, is considered East. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe not... Tunisia and Morocco are FAR more "West" than Poland and Russia. Yet, most would refer to these North African nations as Middle Eastern (also incorrect. Middle Eastern refers to the Levant and the Peninsula). I guess I'm just being very critical and very literate. But even if I was not, why wouldn't South Africa, the Philippines, Japan, China, the UAE, etc, be considered West? In my definition, West is the Americas, and East are the rest. Either that, or the West includes the Middle East as well as Europe, if you're talking about ancient civilization, religion, and colonization. But then, Africa would need to be included too, (geographically...) Who decides which way is West and which way is East? Perhaps it would be far less confusing if we divided the world into North and South. -_- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.42.40 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"(Although, Israel is actually NOT a country)" Israel is an official democratic country and state, it is a member of the UN, deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.221.154 (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There was an added quote that said But these definitions almost always include the countries of Western and Central Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There is no citation to this quote. My question is where did this almost always come from?

As I said in previous messages, everything that is socially being stated about these countries is similar to that of Latin America and the West Indies. Native Western European or structurally western European derived Creole languages, European styled democratic governments, freedom of religion, international trade and Judeo-Christianity is virtually nominally exclusive to almost all of Latin America and West Indies. Wealth is not culture. Having money isn't going to change your native language and your ancestor's religion over the last 400 years. For what it is worth though, the worst poverty you see on this hemisphere (perhaps with the exception of Haiti and some American Indian reservations like the Pine Ridge in South Dakota), the poverty is marginal compared to parts of Africa and Asia. Virtually all of Latin America and the West Indies (excluding Haiti) have high literacy rates, relatively high life expectancy and even variably high incomes, compared to most of the world. I believe all of except Haiti and Paraguay are the only two countries that don't rank as high-end developing (HDI) at minimum.

The problem with people's modern definition of western is that they correlate it to imperialism or new imperialism (mainly from the US). There are western and developed countries that haven't traditionally colonized or neocolonized other places though (ex. Canada, Australia, New Zealand). So colonialism is not exclusive to the west.

Honestly, I haven't been given a reasonable argument yet on the other side saying why Latin America or the West Indies shouldn't be included in the west. It is more a matter of ignoring them (whether purposely or unintentionally is debatable). What cultural argument is there? That indigenous cultures are heavily integrated into the national identities of Latin America? They don't dominate it. And a lot of Latin America doesn't have much indigenous background (the Caribbean, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay).

Although I'm not saying this is why people are manipulating the definition on here, I do believe the is an element of elitism and racism involved. Some people just want to believe that the west is synonymous to being predominantly white. The fact is the media is more concerned of portraying poverty in areas with high non-white and multiracial populations. Yet they'll limitedly show eastern Europe and Russia. Yet the life expectancy for males in Russia is 59 and every eastern European country is developing. Anyway, my point should be clear. Consider culture before economics. Otherwise, you're being ignorantly manipulative.

By the way, saying central Europe is too confusing. Some of that includes Slavic countries like Slovakia and Slovenia which shouldn't be considered culturally western. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyj0127 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by Let's face it The word West has become synonymous with developed and/or Christian. You contradict your own statement immediately by referring to Bosnia because they are not a developed country. Their per capita income is low compare to the rest of their continent. They are also not Christian. There are Christians / non-Muslims living in Bosnia. I suppose they are Bosnians. But this isn't their ethnicity.

There is no one who is considering Lebanon the west. Not even Lebanese Christians. These are native Arabic speaking people. These people are ethnic Arabs. Being Christian is not synonymous to being western. Nigeria's European colonization was more intense, more people speak a western European language (mostly English) there secondly today (despite being a poorer country), they have a split Christian/Muslim population like Lebanon and like Lebanon too their population is almost entirely not of the descendants of Europeans. I personally don't consider Nigeria a western country (even if they do have western influences though). Similarly, I don't consider Lebanon a western country. Few would.

You're right that Tunisia and Morocco are far more west geographically than Poland and Russia. However, Poland and Russia are not considered western countries. It's quite obvious with Russia. The opposition the Soviet Union represent was what intensified the term western. Poland was apart of that. Isn't there an article like Poland and the west on Wikipedia? That's just say it all. Obviously though, Poles and Russians are more culturally related to westerners than North Africans because of a predominantly Judeo-Christian background.

You're also right that some people do call this the Middle East. It isn't. It is North Africa. Some people say the Middle East interchangeably with the Arab world. Especially since both regions produce oil and have a lot of desert.

Japan, China, South Korea and all countries in east Asia are not considered western because they are culturally east Asian. It's really that simple. Just because they've industrialized doesn't mean they are western. Most people in those countries still do not speak a European language secondly nor do most practice Christianity. So there is little reason to support such a claim. The only country that be truly be partly western in this region is Singapore because of British colonization and their sizable European descended and native English population. You can make the argument for Anglo-South Africans, Afrikaners and Coloreds too in South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. The UAE is obviously because it is mostly Muslim and most of it's western residents are temporary.

It is important to note that Judaism and Christianity did not start in the west. So it technically neither is a western religion. Other civilizations carved out western society in a way. Culturally speaking, there are 7 legitimate and populated regions of the world: Western world (Entire Western Hemisphere + Western/Central Europe, Australia, New Zealand, recognizable ethnic minorities in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Liberia and Sierra Leone) ; East Asia ; South Asia ; Southeast Asia + areas considered apart of Oceania sometimes ; Eastern Europe + Russia & ex-Soviet countries ; Arab world + Turkey + Iran + Sub-Saharan Africa. In simple and reliable cultural definitions, this is very accurate in most cases.

As far as your comment about Israel goes, I found it amusing that the next guy only responded to that part of your long message. Whether Israel is western or not is very debatable. The reason is because more than 1/2 of their Jews are of Middle Eastern / North African Arabic speaking descent. They now speak Hebrew natively. It is actually quite interesting and a cultural oxymoron that they've assimilated into Ashkenazi culture by now speaking the language most similar to their grandparents'. About 20-25% of Israel is Arab Israeli (Muslim) and Druze. There are some indigenous Christians though. The Christians and Druze have assimilated more into the Jewish Israeli political and social infrastructure (created by European Jews in the early-to-mid 20th Century).

Like it or not, Israel is a country. Many countries actually don't consider them a country. Mostly Arab/Muslim countries. People don't really take what these Muslim countries say regarding Israel's nationhood seriously. Whether westerners or East Asians, they see it as a sign of their bigotry. I am very much on the side of Palestinians and I'm saying this. What the Israeli government has done to the Palestinian people is beyond oppression and most of the west and world does judge them negatively for it. It doesn't excuse Arab countries to be impractical about reality though. Israel is a country and that is how we should view it politically. Morally and socially will always be subjective.

Lastly, although it might seem odd that Israel is the lone western country in the Middle East, they really aren't that far from Cyprus. TomNyj0127 (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Saying South Americans/Mexicans and not including other central Americans and the Caribbean will create confusion

I believe it is important to be more specific when talking about North America in the introduction. There are several problems with North America. The main problem is that different countries have a different definition of what North America is. In the US, many people think it is just the US, Canada or US, Canada and Mexico. It actually includes the Caribbean and central America too though. My point is if you say South America and Mexico, a lot of people (especially Americans and Canadians) will be confused if the Caribbean and central America are included. So a more exact definition would be valuable. I'll provide one. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8