Talk:Western Europe

Renaissance was not an event, it was rather a course like the enlightenment later

Dear Person! Renaissance was not an event, it was rather a course like the enlightenment later. Bye!--Opposition Party (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree! The Renaissance was an historical event in the same way as the Age of Discovery, the Age of Enlightenment and other time periods with certain characteristics. They happened; humaism did not happen. Humanism is an idea that was a main basis of the Renaissance, but it can not logically be listed in parallell to the Viking Age, the Protestant Reformation and World War II. --T*U (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Historical events have an exact date, Renaissance had not.--Regtraht (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Phrasing of the source

Only after the beginning of the foreign conquests of the Age of Discovery, the autonomous discourse of "Europe" as "the West" began to detach itself from that of "the Christendom", the hitherto dominant identity system in the area, in which was until then subsumed.

Sources

Why is it a wrong phrasing of the (literally quoted below) source (Delanty 1995)? And why do the changes of KIENGIR (talk · contribs) adhere best to the source?--Asqueladd (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposals

To improve the phrasing we can add the adverb protractedly. It is a concern posed by KIENGIR and it follows the "slowly" adverb cited in the source.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Only after the beginning of the foreign conquests of the Age of Discovery, the autonomous discourse of "Europe" as "the West" began to protractedly detach itself from that of "the Christendom", the hitherto dominant identity system in the area, in which was until then subsumed.

Comment+Proposal -> I think it is not enough, the phrase ...its own secularised version of Christendom which began to decline as a unifying narrative... should included, since this "protractedly detach itself" does not properly demonstrate we are speaking approx. a 400 years span, not even fully finished. In fact, the unifying narrative became abandoned step-by-step by some means, and not really the Christendom itself.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC))

-----------------------------------------------------------

Because your close pharaphrasing is misleading/misunderstandable, per your lates edit summary protracted is questionable (this "began to detach itself" phrase is a recent modification, but not satisfactory still), it may be interpreted a severe detachment, which is completely false, and the source does not even use the word "detach".

On the other hand if I click to the source you provided also here, and head to the Europe in the Age of Modernity abstract, I read i.e. this:

The idea of Europe is a creation of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, for it was in these centuries that it entered into its own as a secularised version of Christendom which began to decline as a unifying narrative. The Reformation and the seventeenth century wars of religion shattered the unity of Christendom. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment provided the basis for a new secular identity. The idea of Europe henceforth became the cultural model of the West and served as a unifying theme of modernity. But this did not mean that Europe signified a radical break from the Christian world-view. What happened was that the idea of Europe simply became less subservient to the old nexus of Christendom and its alter ego Islam.

All in all suggesting that that Europe detached from Christendom at the time, is completely false (even exported it in the colonized world outside), it has been a slow process and even after more hundred years and not necessarily became completed, Christendom has been as well in the 19th-20th cenutry a core principle in Europe, even until today in many parts dominant.

Hence your new addition and phrasing has no consensus, it has to be rephrased properly.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

All in all suggesting that that Europe detached from Christendom at the time, is completely false (even exported it in the colonized world outside), it has been a slow process and even after more hundred years and not necessarily became completed,. But that is not the idea of the author and it is not what the article states. It states that after the Age of Discovery the idea of Europe slowly became autonomous (as in not subordinated) from that of Christendom (unlike presumably it was the case until the 15th/16th century). Not that Europe abandoned Christianity. That is your misconception. In the other hand I am citing the Westernisation of Europe chapter. You are citing Europe in the Age of Modernity ("This chapter focuses on the idea of Europe in relation to the great universalist revolutions of modernity") chapter. I don't think they pose any conflicting views (both are after all authored by the same author, lol), just for the record, but the westernisation of Europe could be more in topic for this article (Western Europe).--Asqueladd (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Btw. the idea that the "Age of Discovery" is "marginal" here (as previously posed by KIENGIR here), is frankly speaking, way way out the line. If that is a concern for removing it from the article, well, that's a bad start. "The acquisition of the New World greatly strengthened a sense of European superiority at a time when the West had failed to defeat the Muslim Orient. In its colonising thrust across the Atlantic a myth was created. This was the European myth of the West, which was in subsequent centuries to become an important part of the identity of North America in the myth of the limitless frontier of the West." (Delanty 1995, p. 31) "The older ambivalence between Christendom and Europe was thus replaced by a new one with Europe and the West as the shifting signifiers of a rapidly expanding world-system with its epicentre in western Europe." (Delanty 1995, p. 31)--Asqueladd (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no misconception, the "article says" is equal with the bold edit you did with improper paraphrasing, even if you modified it since then, it is the issue (consequently you did not transmit the author's idea properly and what I edited says the author, since it was directly taken from the same source). The two different chapter's content is the perfect demonstration why your close pharaphrasing was wrong (= became detached, etc.).

Again, please don't address me something I never said (especially if you provide the diff which contradicts your allegation), what I referred that if we list touching centuries or use this term is marginal, considering the main problem was the false representation of the dealing with Christendom. So for, I have to react nothing more, the removal had not any specific reason, but the appropriate summarization from the other chapter I inserted instead.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC))

Proposal 2

If KIENGIR does not disapprove I therefore intend to also add: "The territory of Western Europe became the epicentre of the nascent world-system that followed the expansion to the "New World", with Europe and the West as dominant signifiers". as per (Delanty 1995, p. 31).

No problem with this, but the fisrt issue has to be solved earlier.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC))

Proposal 3

I'd like to suggest that the lede be rewritten in vernacular English rather than Academispeak. If you want to argue about autonomous discourses, narratives, identity systems, signifiers, and other obfuscatory jargon in the body of the article, that's fine, but how about writing a lede for the article that follows WP:LEDE, and instead presents a "summary of its most important contents" in "a clear, accessible style"? Magic9Ball (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Present your proposal then.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC))

References

Map additions and more – February 2021

Parts of the addition of maps etc. from IP81.67 are problematic and will require a consensus in the talkpage before introducing to the article. I have tried to keep what I find uncontroversial and will comment here on the different parts.

• The map in green at the top does not present any inclusion criteria. The countries coloured dark green are presented as "Western Europe", as if there was an universally accepted definition, which obviously is not the case. The countries coloured light green are said to "correspond to the West", which is pure nonsense. It resembles the cold war division, if not completely. This map is inappropriate in the article altogether because of the lack of sourcing/inclusion criteria, and it is an especially bad choice for the top of the article. In fact, no map purporting to "define" WE can be used there.
• The textual presentation of the UN geoscheme is not only inaccurate, but bordering on dishonesty. The geoscheme does not purport to be a "partition of Europe by united nations, according to peoples, climate, and cultures". On the contrary, the web site of the UN Statistical Division states explicitly The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations. The inclusion of the geoscheme in the article has been discussed before, without any clear consensus having been reached. I could support presenting it, but it would have to be based on a talk page consensus (and it would of course have to be a truthful text). Having two maps is absolute overkill.
• Also the EuroVoc map has been discussed before, and can only be introduced after a talk page discussion. It would also have to be supported by a text explaining the source of this classification.
• I see no problem with adding the climate map to the section "Climate". I am more concerned that the section itself may be inappropriate. Is there really anything useful to say about the climate in such a loosely defined region?

I will remove the introductary map and the UN and EuroVoc sections. The best thing would probably be to raise the question of adding the two sections as a WP:RfC. --T*U (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Western Europe and the West

West and Western Europe do not correspond to the same geographical definition. It is therefore necessary to specify the two. the green card represents the part of Western Europe and its enlargement when we define the West as a whole. The maps of the United Nations, the CIA or the EuroVoc define Western Europe. Those are international organizations which have their place in this page. The goal is to inform readers and not to censor these maps on the pretext that they do not correspond to the definition that a user of wikipedia would make of them.--Julio91red (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Julio91red: Please read carefully the section #Map additions and more – February 2021 just above. Just a couple of additional comments in all haste:

• What on earth is "the West"? Please explain which definition and which sources the green map is based on.
• The maps of UN, CIA and EuropVoc do not define Western Europe. How can they, when they all include different selections of countries?
• The text about the UN geoscheme is factually wrong, as it is contradicted by the UN Statistic Division website itself. How do you defend restoring false information?
• In your edit summary you call my edits vandalism. Please read WP:VANDALISM to learn what is meant with the term in Wikipedia.
• And while you are at it, other relevant reading material might be WP:V about verifiability (re the map), WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD about how to behave when here is a disagreement about content.

Regards! --T*U (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have read your text and it is your personal opinion, however your opinion does not have to be imposed on wikipedia. The United Nations, EuroVoc and the CIA describe their ways of defining and dividing Europe. These organizations are internationally recognized and their maps have a major importance on Wikipedia. In addition, it is marked that the map is after this or that organization, and only represents his way of seeing it. So from the moment it's explained, we have to show them otherwise some users will invent maps and put anything. These maps are therefore very important. Moreover all these maps are practically identical, in fact they take into consideration the type of climate, the culture of the countries, as well as the peoples. The West in the broad sense includes more countries in particular within the meaning of the Cold War with the countries which were in the West. There is Western Europe geographically, culturally, and climate. And there is Western Europe in the broad sense, corresponding to the former capitalist country.--Julio91red (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)