Talk:Western Europe/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Western Europe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I changed all the referrals to Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway & Sweden from "Scandinavian countries" to "Nordic countries"

• yeah, northern europe not is western europe; western europe = northern iberia + west france (=/= south france) + ireland + west britania (=/= northern britania)..northwest europe =/= west europe.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.174 (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Scooter20 is defending his OR map of "western Europe"[1] where he publishes his home-cooked idea that CIA's definition of "western Europe" is identical to a group of "core states" of "western Europe". It is highly deplorable that Wikipedia is misused in this fashion. If Scooter20 wants to launch an agency's notion as a definer of "core states" why didn't he pick the UN's definition which excludes the UK but includes Germany? The idea of "Western Europe" depends on what it is compared to. If used in England, it can exclude the UK, but if used by a Russian it can include the Baltic states and Poland. Any attempt at presenting a map which tries to define "core states of western Europe" needs to be referenced to a mainstream and reliable source that does the same, and CIA's map does not do that. It only presents its own idea of what Western Europe is. Scooter20's map is not only OR, it synthesizes based on a POV.--Mapperman (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

PS, I have studied the CIA factbook to find out the origin of their peculiar definition of "western Europe" and it appears that they no longer include it. It was likely removed because of it was erroneous, or because it was a temporary navigational tool that is nowadays obsolete. No information can be used here unless it can be verified.--Mapperman (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello there,

My reasoning for creating the map that way is the following:

I considered many criteria such as: geographical, cultural and political criteria.

• I chosen France, the British Isles and the Benelux Countries as core states because they are strictly in Western Europe.
• Spain, Portugal, Gibraltar and Andorra are mostly in Southern Europe, but in the Western part of Southern Europe therefore South-Western Europe.
• The maximum extent of Western Europe also include the countries which are part of Central, Southern or Northern Europe but which were not behind the Iron Curtain and thus were not under the influence of the USSR.

For instance: Germany is a Central European country which is considered Western European in the wide sense of the term, the same goes to Italy (which is Southern European) or Finland (which is Northern European).

Scooter20 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to create an NPOV map of "western Europe", because these European subdivisions are extremely context dependent. Before the Cold War, the most salient and decisive divider of West and East was the western border of the Orthodox church (not affected by e.g. the renaissance or using the Latin alphabet, although Romania adopted it later), and in Middle Age contexts, you can find "Northern Europe" defined as everything north of the Alps. I think this article is better presented with subsections based on the use of "western Europe" in common/representative and verifiable contexts (Christian subdvisions, cold war, economics, art, architecture, etc.).--Mapperman (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mapperman, Scooter's maps are original research, it's time they were nfd. Izzedine (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone with background in cultural & political studies who would be able to remake this article (and who would be able to see the difference between culture and the cold war)? its present stereotypic wording is just terrible... Montessquieu (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. The UNESCO map is outdated. It only exists on the archive website (address: http://web.archive.org...), while the current website distinguishes only one region: Europe and North America, with special explanation: The Europe and North America region presented here follows the specific UNESCO definition which does not forcibly reflect geography. It refers to the execution of regional activities of the Organization. The Cold War classification if over for UNESCO though (unfortunately, for this article it is not). Regards, Montessquieu (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Some comments about Scooter20 claims " My reasoning for creating the map that way is the following: I considered many criteria such as: geographical, cultural and political criteria."

?? what is common between France and UK+Netherlands ?

? Geographcal ? France doesn't even border none of these countries, is situated completly south of them, France borders Italy, Germany or Spain. UK+Netherlands countries are oriented towards a "north sea culture" (germanic sea at it was once called); France border the mediterranean coast (from where it find its oldest roots, oldest cities, from where romanization came from) because it is Situated in the west part of Europe? well Spain and Portugal are much more western in that sense, but you exclude them? You said because Spain and Portugal are also in southern Europe exclude them from being western... well I don't think that argument works since they are much more western than France (which is also quite southern European), and including UK doesn't seem to bother you, when it is situated in northern Europe; if you exclude Iberia because it is southern you should exclude British isles because they are northern European (UN recognise it that way). So, I don't see the geographical logic.

? Cultural ? well once again France doesn't fit with the UK+Netherlands group. The two main cultural criteriums: language and religion clearly separate them: France is a latin country, speaking a Romance language and is historically a Catholic nation; while UK and Netherlands are Germanic nations, with a huge protestant tradition. In other cultural points of view such as architecture or food France clearly differs from the red-brick typical architecture of UK/Benelux, and is part of the "wine-based Europe" (with the other latin countries Italy and Spain) (in opposition with "beer-based Europe" (Germanic nations: UK, Benelux, Germany, etc). Not even need to speak about the differences of mentalities between those countries... What do you consider to be culturally common between France and UK+Netherlands ??

? Political ? France is a republic; UK, Netherlands, Belgium are all Monarchies. Their political histories are widely different. Politically once again France has much more in common with Italy, or even with Germany (with which it has important relations inside the EU). UK defenitly doesn't share the same implications in the EU than France or Germany have (doesn't even have the same money)...

From a french point of view, UK or Netherlands are northern European countries (with the other Germanic nations): different languages group, different religions, more northern geographical localisation, more northern architecture, more norther food traditions, etc... I don't understand the purpose of putting France in that group. Or if we do it, we should include the iberian peninsula, with which France share much more than with UK or Netherlands: similar languages, catholic heritage, localisation around the mediterranean, wine-based culture, etc... it is clearly a different part of western Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

From a french point of view, i don't see the which trouble comes from putting spain in southern Europe more than western europe. It's not a shame to be southern. And this is true that France has more common points with others western countries (Belgium, UK, Germany...). France shares the same history or geography as UK or Germany, for good or bad. Spain or Italy just don't : souther climates (mediterranean on the whole), strong influences of religion in society, strong parallel economy, culture of emigration to flee the poverty until their european integration, late democratic traditions, more traditional societies, rule of the family, women in working market...for the so-latin french language, i'm sorry, but the most of french don't speak a word of italian or portuguese, so it's not a real criterion. How can we think that Lorraine has more common points with Castilla than with Palatinate ? Or Normandy with Toscane than with Sussex ? Or Lille's region with Portugal than with Netherlands ?...

As french, i feel neither Germanic nor Latin, just occidental or western European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.56.12.101 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I put the UN map at the top of the article, which seems to me more appropriate to the cultural, historical, and geographical realities of Western Europe. I wanted to add a section about common characteristics of Western Europe. Why is it impossible ? Is it the page blocked ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.10.52.211 (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the page is "Protected Western Europe: IP hopping editor adding un-sourced map". If you're the one adding the map and the common characteristics, notice that:

• You have been systematically reverted by a number of established editors.
• You map is not sourced, and even if sourced as a view of what Western Europe is, it is not sourced as the "more appropriate to the cultural, historical, and geographical realities of Western Europe" - just because you think this, that does not mean other editors will agree.
• Your list of "common characteristics" is nothing but your own Original Research (see Wikipedia:No original research) of what is common in Western Europe - unless you find a credible published academic source saying those are the "common characteristics" of Western Europe you will be reverted.

You see, wikipedia, as all encylcopedias, is NOT about what the world is (or about what YOU believe the world to be...), but about what credible published sources say the world is. The Ogre (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"If you're the one adding the map and the common characteristics"

Yes, I am « the one ». And in civilized countries, we say “the person”.

"You map is not sourced"

Orthograaff !... It's right for the first map (I did not know all the rules of wiki). But in a second time, I wanted to put in relief the UN map (which is almost the same as the one I've posted), and to have a discussion about it. And suddenly (afraid ?...), you've block the page.

"and even if sourced as a view...just because you think this, that does not mean other editors will agree."

How condescending...When Portuguese people have come in my country to flee the misery, they didn't feel so superior...And since you like capital letters, I remind you that Western Europeans continue to pay taxes for YOU (Structural funds).

"Your list of "common characteristics" is nothing but your own Original Research"

Wrong. First, all the links were based on statistics from official institutes. And second, those characteristics was posted to confirm the official UN map that I wanted to put in first place, by using geographical or society features. “Western Europe” is not a scientific but a subjective concept. The maps that you have published are just some ones among a thousand of others. And if some conclusions hurt your national pride, you like it or not, the facts are the facts.

"unless you find a credible published academic source"

I published sources of EUROSTAT (official European Union statistics), INSEE (official french statistics office), Swiss federal official sources, French governmental sources (Assemblée Nationale, Sénat), and even sources from Wikipedia. Do you admit sources only when they match your desires ?

"wikipedia, as all encylcopedias, is NOT about what the world is"

IT IS ! Revealing slip...

"but about what credible published sources say the world is"

See above...I wait for your own definition of what is a credible source...

However, it is always a pleasure to read you, your majesty the king of Wikiland... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.195.95.115 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"The United Kingdom and France, two of the victors in the [World War II]." How exactly did France win WW2. Weren't they occupied by Germany and then liberated by the Allied forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.183.240.185 (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See Free French Forces and Charles de Gaulle for a start. 199.90.28.195 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Topographical maps of Western and Eastern Europe from U.S. Army Topographic Command from 1950s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.111.58 (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with some comments from the page. It is necessary to distinguish strictly the western europe, and the southern europe for different reasons:

• Geography : the southern europe knows essentially a Mediterranean climate (except a few lines to the north), while the dominant climate of western europe is oceanic ; western europe are essentially flat regions while southern europe countries are montainous peninsulas...
• The History and the evolution of the States is different (spain, portugal, italy and greece won't exist for a long time and will remain foreign colonies before independence in the 16th and 19th century), while UK, France, Germany have been made in the same pattern ; i don't talk about religious wars in western europe which didn't exist in southern europe, different colonization of the Americas..
• The economy is different: industrialization has marked the landscapes, industrialization almost inexistant in Southern Europe, importance of the black market in southern europe ; the economic development of southern europe is closely linked to European integration (structural founds in southern europe)...
• The history of vernacular architecture of southern Europe is different
• Modern ideologies (liberalism, communism, Enlightment) were born in western europe
• Sociologically, Southern Europe is characterized by the importance of family

There would be many other examples. So I think the UN map seems to correspond better to reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleeping water (talk • contribs) 14:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The professional serious encyclopedias like English Britannica and German Brockhaus: They considered Germany Austria and Switzerland as part of Central Europe. These encyclopedias were edited by academic scholars and experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Cold-War based terms.

Real encyclopedias like English Britannica and German Brockaus encyclopedia don't consider Austria Germany Switzerland as Western European countries. They are Central Europeans. It must be removed, because it's unencyclopedic. Moreover European Scientific academies (and the British Royal Society) use the Central Europe term. European Union also use this term for the countries. Only united Nations use old cold war terms.

Well, to be honest, even United Nations does Use new sub-division. Please, have a look there: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp48.pdf--Rejedef (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Western Europe sometimes includes additionally; Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Greece.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] - Gennarous (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article contains inordinately many inconsistencies (e.g., different subsections make different claims about Greece as part of WE) and superfluous material that it is hardly encyclopedic any more. I suggest to begin the article with the United Nations definition[11] and the accompanying map as the most neutral. This is how the sister article on NE proceeds before delving into the different historical definitions. Accordingly, the stats table should only contain data for countries that the UN has designated as belonging to the region. The map[12] that is supposedly based on the National Geographic Society definition is clearly out of date, the Society's website treats Europe now as a whole (if kept, it should be added to the political history section). As for the other definitions proposed on this talk page - most of them are widely accepted only in certain traditions (e.g., the German tradition of Central Europe). All definitions based on the political history between 1945 and 1991 may have been expedient then but are out of date now. In summary, the United Nations definition is the only one that is supranational and apolitical, and therefore shouldn't cause any controversy. --Vihelik (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am ready to add more refs, including National Geographic Society Style Manual. [13] Unobjectionable (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Sorry, it works perfectly and reads this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't want to remove the UN map, although I think it isn't the most accurate. Only you are deleting maps here, again and again. The UN map is a definition of WE and should be shown as well as the WE map used by hundreds of organizations, and you have no right to force the exclusive use of a specific non-vinculative map that only you support. BTW did you read the sourced statement "According to the UN Statistics Division, the assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations."? Unobjectionable (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For instance the references are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You will be surprised. UNAIDS and other UN agencies include Spain and Italy to Western Europe. Also, see different interpretations on the Internet ^[1]. Perhaps the key to that would be that these countries were in the Western European Union, as well as NATO and European Union plus they are Western Christian and participated in colonialism - that makes them Western. I understand that you will subscribe ti the point of view of Anne Applebaum ^[2]--Rejedef (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you mean thee peace index map? It consists on many [[14]]. Although all these London riots, arrests as well as the vision of Scotland going independent, and Britain's involvement in Libya and other ccountries do not increase the factor. However, number of arrests in Belarus is very high and there are a bit to many weapons in the country.--Rejedef (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversy
The term 'Western Europe' differs in terms of geography, religion, inlolvement in colonialism, culture, belonging to the Western civilisation, alphabet, human development index, currency and membership of the European Union, scores in democracy index and even time zones. The term's understanding is challenged by scholars including Larry Wolff, a professor of History at the New York University. Wolff argues in 'Inventing Eastern Europe: Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment that Western Europe was invented by enlightenment scholars. Major points to dismantle Western Europe as a region are that the disparity between Eastern andWestern Europe' is more and more invalid in terms of factual data: GDP, gender equality, corruption and peace index. There is a a lot of controversy when central Europe is concerned. The part of Europe stood separated from mainstream Western culture by the Iron Curtain for c. 45 yearsaccording to Samuel Huntington, an influential professor of politics at Harvard University. He includes Central European countries like the Czech Republic, Hungary or Poland in the Western world. Milan Kundera, a prominent Czech writer and a political activist in his 'Tragedy of Central Europe', he argued that central Europe is culturally in the West but politically in the East. After the fall of the Iron Curtain it came into question what is 'Western Europe'. Edward Lucas, an Economist journalist educated at London School of Economics, criticised the term, by challenging the East-West decision of Europe, for its inconsistency in his article [3] and his TED speech in Kraków[4] suggesting to ignore European divisions and if they are built, they should be based on facts. Oscar Halecki, a history professor of Colombia University, in his books 'Borderlands of Western Civilization: A History of East Central Europe' and 'The Limits and Divisions of European History' (1962) argues that Western Europe is wider (extended to Poland and other Central European countries). hWorld Health Organisation does not distinguish Western Europe in its report in the 2010 report. Media use the term Western Europe in different ways in different media ie. BBC.
^ http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22spain+in+western%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=DZT_TsmzNMTu8QOZjPGaAQ&biw=1366&bih=624&sei=MpT_TruMO9Oq8QOu6MHMAQ#um=1&hl=en&safe=off&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=RJX_TqDtEtOi8gPfsrm9AQ&ved=0CDsQvwUoAQ&q=western+Europe&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=5c711cc0e297a887&biw=1366&bih=624 ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090602960.html ^ http://www.economist.com/node/15213108 ^ http://tedxkrakow.com/videos/72-edward-lucas-eastern-europe-an-outdated-concept ^ http://141.74.33.52/stagn/Portals/0/070829_Text_ER4_05_jordan.pdf ^ http://141.74.33.52/stagn/JordanEuropaRegional/tabid/71/Default.aspx

If the section follows the Cold War division, then East Germany should be excluded. It is not clear in this case, why all population estimates are of no earlier than 2000. If the section has to follow another classification, then this classification must be re-stated. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The article mentions 'While the term has a geographic context' and then seems to ignore it. The cold war is a blip in history, this should not be used to redefine 'Western Europe'. The first para is focused mostly on cold war related definition, that is secondard (IMO). If there are histo-culturo-politico phases (incl Cold War) the first para should either be generic or cover the largest context, which IMO is that it a chunk of land

This is obviously political, but as an Australian, I don't care. In my encyclopaedia I want a map and a list of countries. Add a one-liner, "The term Western Europe was also used to describe the non-communist European countries opposed to the communist Eastern Bloc" and perhaps break off into another article 'Western Europe (Cold War)' or such. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. Having space station video at the head of an article is daft! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimarx (talk • contribs) 23:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is claiming that the Czech Republic is part of Western Europe? It's part of Central Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.33.11 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Just an announcement for all participants of the last year, this Western Europe has been selected for this week's edition of Today's articles for improvement. If you have continued interest in this article, please spend some time on it this week. And if you enjoy this kind of collaboration, consider becoming a regular over at the TAFI project. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mspence835, DemocraticLuntz, Alexqb1212, and Helptottt: @Arcillaroja, Excirial, Valentino76, and Martina Moreau: @Oddbodz, Vihelik, Czar, and I dream of horses: @Incnis Mrsi, Berig, Adavidb, and Amaury: @Donner60, Squids and Chips, Fpenteado, and Inglok: @Radarm, Arcillaroja, Che829, and PedroPVZ: @Ubiquity, Andrewman327, Eyesnore, and Widr: @Martina Moreau, Kat99999123, Emmette Hernandez Coleman, and Conifer:

I stumbled upon this dispute and have little knowledge of the topic or dispute resolution protocols, but perhaps I can serve as an unbiased third party.

Unregistered user 2001:8a0:7a89:4501:e9ee:17f4:e7a4:6d44 repeatedly deleted part of the article with the reasoning "Despite the divisions by the UN or other entities, the traditional regional division of Europe is still Western Europe and Eastern Europe." Users Amortias and Hmains reverted the deletion a few times. I was wondering how to resolve this dispute. JoshBM16 (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• the only solution at this point is to limit editing of this article so as to exclude a class of editors, such as IP or whatever works. Blocking a single IP does no good since he uses a different IP address with each edit. Hmains (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• The semiprotection on this article has come and gone and they're at it again; I think it needs to be indefinite. JoshBM16 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This list and Western Europe as a whole is always defined through the Cold War Era of Geopolitics, therefore, Turkey is absolutely a country which deserves a spot, as most obvious to everyone this should be, that Turkey is part of geopolitical western Europe. If you deny this, and somehow support an earlier edit including Czech Republic as Western Europe, then I question your knowledge greatly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavakdere (talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If you read the article carfefully, you will find that Western Europe is not "always defined through the Cold War Era of Geopolitics". The definition varies widely according to context. In the population table it is stated that the list contains countries "that are commonly referred to" as Western Europe. If Turkey should be included, it would have to be shown (and sourced) that Turkey is "commonly referred to" as included in Western Europe. I think that will not be possible. --T*U (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Turkey isn't even solely a part of Europe. And while the Cold War is central in much West-East terminology, it isn't necessarily so in others. Besides, we don't make these maps ourselves. These are prominent definitions within the international community. So far, none have included Turkey in Western Europe.

I highly disagree with giving the CIA definition the highest authority on what "Western Europe" comprises, exactly. I've placed the UN definition at the top now. At least people will be able to see two of the differing views. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: Actually, after your edit, both the UN and the CIA map are duplicated in the article. How about dropping both of them at the top and have them only "where they belong" in the article's discussion of different definitions. Then the video would be the top illustration, which is kind of neutral. --T*U (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Agree completely, that would actually be a much better solution. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It is rather surprising to add (Croatian, Polish, Czech and Hungarian) to this subsection of the article. The countries where these languages are spoken are generally consider to be in Central or Eastern Europe. I will remove them if you agree with it. Arcillaroja (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Can't see any logical justification for Polish or Czech. Apparently there is a large, native, Croatian and Hungarian minority in Austria, however they are situation in the far east of the country anyway. So yeah, I agree with removing them. Maybe note the Croatian and Hungarian minority in Austria at the bottom. Rob984 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering why is it informative to add this group to the article. Any comments? Arcillaroja (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It isn't. Akin to that of the UNSD statistical groupings. Articles aren't suppose to be lists of definitions anyway. Rob984 (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Where has this been used? Same goes for "East Europe" over on the Eastern Europe page. --Khajidha (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess the page is locked because of the boundaries issue that's probably what's discussed above, but could someone remove the map of Y-DNA haplogroup R1b from the page? The sources are Eupedia, which is a blog-like website with speculation about origins from some dude who makes all sorts of fascinating but not really verifiable theories on origins, and this [[15]], which while it does show many West European populations have heavy R1b frequencies, it never associates it with the concept of "Western Europe" or claims "Western Europeans" are some sort of established population grouping in population genetics -- so it's SYN. Thanks. --Yalens (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that map is complete nonsense at that point, especially as it's misplaced in the gallery of an entirely unrelated section ("Other groupings and organisations covering the western part of Europe include:.."). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually thanks for bringing this up Future Perfect, this entire section actually looks off to me.

• European Space Agency -- firstly the pic is obsolete (Hungary added, etc etc). Otherwise, like other "EU-integration" organizations it mostly coincides with the older EU and predecessors (except Bulgaria, which isn't in W Europe by any definition); if we included them it'd make the page crap. Is it particularly relevant?
• IMF 2008 classifications -- obsolete again (here's 2016 World Bank classifications:[[16]]). The historic and cultural factors (including the Cold War) are cited, but I can't find cites at all for how "developedness" nowadays is relevant. My personal OR experience: people do associate W Europe with economic "advancedness"; but this is also controversial in some quarters and should be discussed in a sourced and fair way on the page if "developedness" is pictured here, otherwise it looks like more SYN (see below). The page already covers other economic factors with maps of the EU, etc. Also by mapping "developedness" of countries rather than regions one loses nuance -- here's the EU regional classifications [[17]]. Some other maps have the same issue minus obseleteness

Why do I think this is SYN? Of course there are many things that coincide with definitions of W Europe vaguely, but should they all be on the page? Certain types of pebbles are also found mostly in Western Europe, but one can see why pebble and sparrow species distributions aren't pictured on the page, because no source is going to say they're relevant to a geopolitical concept. W Europe is a culturally constructed (and ambiguous) concept, not some objectively geographically defined entity. That's unlike, say, Sardinia, or even France, which although it's culturally constructed, at least it has a universally accepted definition (mostly, ignoring irredentists). Worse still, the actual definition of it is contested, as is clearly visible two topics above this. Perhaps I'm overinterpreting wiki policy, but I feel that placement of these maps implies each is relevant to the concept (and this is messy on pages like this that are apparently prone to POV disputes) and such statements need RS support to demonstrate that they're topically irrelevant. I think that's especially important given the apparent controversy about this page. Thanks all for hearing me out, --Yalens (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Some editors here are doing selective picking of which countries are commonly considered to be Western European countries, based on their personal perceptions and not on which countries the sources provided from various international organizations and agencies to be listed/considered/referred to as Western European.

Examples of this Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth violation are the edits by User:Thomas.W who reverted: [18] my revert on User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise: [19].

Thomas.W and Future Perfect at Sunrise haven't provided any sources that Greece isn't considered/referred as a Western European country, and their edits were solely based on personal perceptions or geographical criteria. This has as result, the list (which clearly states that it is about countries commonly referred to as WE countries, both geographically, geopolitically or culturally) to have Greece removed strictly on geographical criteria only applied to that particular country, and without taking in account Greece's non-geographical reference/consideration as an WE country.

As result of these Thomas.W's and Future Perfect at Sunrise's edits (which I reverted now, followed by with a warning on both user's talks), the list has Greece removed on geographical grounds, but non-geographical WE countries like Sweden, Germany, Malta, even Austria and Finland(!) still being listed in it, and this is a problem because it is not understood why different criteria must apply for Greece and different for the other countries, such as Germany, Finland and Malta, even though the sources provided list Greece as an WE country.

While the personal opinions of editors are respected, their reasonings are 1) invalid because it is clearly stated in the intro text above the list that this list is not only about geographical Western European countries, and 2) the opinions of the editors, as per WP:NOTTRUTH are not a contrary source to the sources already provided for that list.

I believe there can be only 2 solutions to the dispute: either rely to what the sources and websites across the internet suggest or commonly refer to Greece, among others, as an WE country, either ignore the suggestions and remove ALL the non-geographical WE countries, (including Germany, Finland, Malta, Norway, etc). Either the one, either the other. Any selective picking of countries based on personal perceptions are just WP:POV and WP:Unsourced and will find me vehemently opposing this. Any similar edits will be considered WP:Disruption and will be reverted. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 15:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

How is Greece in Western Europe? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Greece isn't in Western Europe by geographical terms, but by cultural and geopolitical terms it is part of Western Europe. It was even member of the Western European Union. I shall remind you, this list isn't about geographical Western Europe, hence why it had Greece, Finland and Germany listed in the first place. The disagreement here however is about why geographical criteria have to apply only on Greece and not on Finland or Germany, if such criteria have to be applied to that list? Shouldn't criteria be universal and apply for all the countries in that list? --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The WEU was a Cold War grouping, based on the position of the Iron Curtain. Turkey and Greece were NATO-aligned, not Warpac. But that doesn't make them any credible part of this fuzzily WP-invented "Western Europe".

I'm inclining to delete this whole article. Either find an independent meaning for it, or it's an OR NEOLOGISM and should go. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand and respect your reasoning, but that's only a view still, and not everyone may agree with that. Thing is, no matter our views, it cannot be denied that the definition of Western Europe is also used for Greece as well (and not only for Greece, but for Austria, Germany, Sweden, Finland and Malta too).

As for your suggestions, I am at your side. I will support either deleting the article, either re-writing it in purely geographical Western European sense (I suggest that over deletion), either restore it to the last stable version it was prior to Future Perfect's and Thomas W's biased and disputed edits. What I hate is bias and this is my primary concern here. Either way you go, Andy Dingley, you have my full support. Thomas's biased edits, however, cannot stay as is. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 17:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• You have been reverted multiple times (see page history), so per WP:BRD do not add Greece back again until there's a clear consensus here supporting it. Period. And I definitely do not support it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thomas W, Do you realize what you have done now? You reverted me: [20] but your revision has caused more problems:

1) The list of languages only displays those languages which are spoken by at least 5.000.000 in geographical Western Europe. This isn't true about the German language. which is only spoken by only 3.000.000 Western Europeans, far below the threshold of 5.000.000 of that list. Please check the source from Ethnologue - German Language speaking population in geographical Western Europe (this list is only about geographical WE) doesn't exceed 3.000.000 people.

2) In your revision, you have argued that I removed German language and replaced it with Greek, but this is not true. Please read carefully my edit here: [21] where I stated that I removed both of them. False accusations aren't going to help you!

3) Furthermore, despite my call for you to refrain from further disruptions and join the talk page discussion, you removed again Greece based on your WP:POV and not on what the cited sources do suggest, which is a violation of WP:NOTTRUTH.

4) You removed the citation improvements and you had absolutely no reason to do that. Please see WP:CITATION.

5) It is not me the one who made the disputed changes. If you see the history log, you will find that Greece was in the list long before you and Future Perfect made these disputed changes in the last couple of days. I warn you, to remove without consensus something that was for a long time here, and THEN demand consensus(!) for its re-addition, goes blatantly against Wikipedia's WP:CONSENSUS which is to ask for consensus on new changes/edits to the page.

I am urging you to self-revert your revision immediately otherwise I will report you to the ANI and ask for the intervention by administrators. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Something really has to be done about it because just now, another editor, User:Hmains apparently glueless about Western European geography, removes SE Greece but keeps NE Finland, a country which borders... Russia(!), on the grounds of WE geography [22]. I am baffled with this nonsense. Yet what makes things worse, that he too, like the rest, are reverting the article back to the biased revision which includes every CE, NE and SE countries except Greece. I could appreciate if editors read carefully the article before editing/reverting my changes to it. For example, the intro text for the list, writes: "Population of various countries that are commonly referred to as "Western Europe", between the years 2000 and 2016.". Its obvious that commonly referred as WE ≠ geographical WE and that if Finland, Sweden, Germany and Malta have the right to be included in that list due to being commonly referred, so does Greece which is also commonly referred to as WE country (according to given sources).
• Also it saddens me that Hmains in his revision has restored the German language into the WE language section which clearly states that languages with less than 5.000.000 speakers have no place in it. According to Ethnologue, German and Greek do not exceed the benchmark of 5 million speakers in WE required for inclusion into that list. Hence why I removed it [23], before Hmains and the others restore it partially. Do the people here really check what they are doing before reverting? --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 06:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• User:Thomas.W keeps edit warring despite my warnings to him. A careful checking of Western Europe's History Log, shows that Thomas is trying to maintain his POV on the article, not to protect it or to restore it back to its last stable version prior to Future Perfect's edits. Thomas' first revision: [24], had Greece selectively removed from the list, (only Greece, not any of the other non-WE countries), using the excuse of geographic criteria. OK. However, when someone else tries to expand Thomas's reasoning to apply geographic criteria to all the other countries in the list Thomas has "forgotten" to apply, [25], Thomas reverts him, this time with this baffling argument [26] that geography wasn't agreed as a criteria in the first place. This is a glaring example that Thomas does not care about the article's neutrality, only cares about maintaining their POV and keeping only Greece out of the list, at expense of both sources and opposing editor's concerns. I think it is time for Admins to intervene as this nonsense must stop. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 15:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Selectively removing specific countries without the slightest excuse can make someone wonder if there is some kind of obsession about this. I would kindly suggest restoring the initial content before the issue emerged.Alexikoua (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again we see the start of an edit war over the table of "Population". That table has been a bone of contention ever since it was introduced back in 2009. This time the question is the inclusion or non-inclusion of Greece. On earlier occations most of the countries currently included have been in and out. Also there have been attempts to include other countries, like the Czech Republic, Poland and Turkey. Even Cyprus has been mentioned. In the beginning there were some attempts to explain the inclusion criteria, such as "as defined by UNESCO" or "as defined by the National Geographic Society" etc., but the current "that are commonly referred to as Western Europe" is absolutely useless. Given the many different definitions of Western Europe, it is, of course, possible to find any number of sources that mention a given country as Western European. The problem is that we need sources to say that the given country is commonly referred to as Western European. Without such source it has no place in the table, and such sources are hard to find, if they exist at all.

In the "Languages" section we face similar problems. I see it is argued that this list is only about the "geographical" Western Europe (which actually also is ill-defined), but there is nothing in the text to support this distinction. The "Climate" section and the "Economy" section have the same inherent disambiguity. It is not possible to say anything interesting about the climate in Western Europe unless we base it on a definition of what Western Europe is.

One solution is to specify inclusion criteria for each and all of those four articles, but I am afraid that will turn into new edit wars. The simple Columbi egg solution is to remove all these four sections altogether. Then tha article will be an analysis of different definitions of Western Europe. The above discussion (and earlier discussions) seem to prove that such an article is needed. --T*U (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well said, TU-nor. I am really tired of this selective appliance of different criteria for different countries on different sections that merely reflect personal views of the editors in a selective and not catholic way. You have my full support on your suggestions. Btw, your case here also relates to my case above. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• I would prefer to keep it, but I recognise the problems. Either it finds some independent definition (and a simple geographic definition is simple), or it ought to go. If there's an AfD, please ping me. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Andy Dingley: You may have misunderstood me. I do not suggest to remove the whole article (and I do not support such removal), just to remove the four sections mentioned. --T*U (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, thank you for recognizing the problem. If there is consensus on removing sections (not the article, that could be too extreme), I am fine with it although I could prefer TU-nor's suggestions for re-writing it based on geographical criteria (that make more sense) --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So the article stays as it is until then, just because Thomas.W "does not support it" without providing any sources? I found 5 sources including Greece and someone had them removed too, I do not understand why that is happening. Especially considering Greece has been on that list for years, so until consensus is gained, it's irrational for Greece not to be included. If wikipedia means biased people removing the sources added by other people and writing their own false information, it should definitely close down. 79.103.208.197 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly the article needs the attention of administrators, as it isn't merely a content dispute as I originally thought. Certain editors here are not contributing positively to the resolution of the dispute. User:Thomas.W's behavior on the article shows signs of WP:OWNERSHIP. Despite my warnings to him, Thomas is trying to maintain his POV on the article, not to protect it or to restore it back to its last stable version prior to Future Perfect's biased edits. Thomas' first revision: [27], had Greece selectively removed from the list, (only Greece, not any of the other non-WE countries), using the excuse of geographic criteria. And when 79.103.208.197 tried to expand Thomas's reasoning to apply geographic criteria to all the other countries in the list (the ones Thomas has "forgotten" to apply), [28], Thomas reverts the IP [29] on the grounds that geography wasn't agreed as a criteria in the first place. if this isn't WP:OWNERSHIP, then what is it? The disputed changes were applied without consensus and now Thomas asks for Consensus to return back to the revision prior to these disputed changes. A clear case of WP:GAMING. Something needs to be done because the current situation is unacceptable. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 15:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. The case has to be reported, if not Thomas W. as an editor 79.103.208.197 (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to update my position. After a short discussion with TU-nor, and partly due to the ongoing edit war, I am realizing that deciding and agreeing on criteria (which more or less could be geographical ones) could take possibly a very long time due to no clear geographical definition existing about WE boundaries and it is very likely that no consensus will be reached on that matter, at least not in the foreseen future. Due to this, I will rather support the removal of the whole sections instead of discussing about the criteria.

@ Andy Dingley, could you consent to the TU-nor's proposed solution of removing the whole sections? That could help in building a quick consensus. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 05:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to pretend that this article doesn't exist and not waste any more time on it (but the more of it that is deleted, the better, IMHO). Andy Dingley (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support removing both tables currently in the article. There's no single definition of Western Europe; anybody who wants this information can look at a Europe-wide table. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure whether or not I support the full "remove 4 sections" proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Removal of just the tables isn't a bad idea either. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 07:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Removing the tables will surely help, since that is where most of the edit warring has happened. But even if we remove the tables, the sections will still need to have inclusion criteria: Should (as has been proposed) Greek language be mentioned in the text about languages? Should Basque be mentioned (like it is now)? What about Finnish? Should Germany be mentioned under Economy? Should Spain be included in the Climate section? It all depends on the definition of Western Europe for each and all of the sections. --T*U (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Support removing tables as everyone seems to agree this will solve some conflicts that have occurred.
        • TU-nor I think each should be done in a critical fashion that does justice to a country's topical specifics. Important to talk about why questionable countries are classified one way for by domain experts, not Wikipedia editors. Greek for languages? I'd say no, because linguistically afaik the modern Greek language has little to do with what most linguists would discuss regarding "Western European" areal linguistic phenomena, and Ancient Greek influences are not specific to Western Europe at all and largely due to use for neologisms especially in science. Its interactions with its Balkan neighbors in contrast get a lot of discussion, see Balkan sprachbund, etc. Basque, on the other hand, is obviously very different from its neighbors, but it also interacted with them significantly, and in onomastics there are theories that see it as influential in an explicitly in an area explicitly called W Europe (see Vasconic substratum theory, tho note this has critics). Finnish, idk as much, but similar factors should be considered based on what linguists say, not Wikipedia users . Economy I know less about, but it's likely a hairball because of Cold War factors historically dividing Germany, tho today I'd be shocked to hear anyone describe Germany as anything but "Western" (Greece & Finland are more controversial generally speaking, but economy is one area where both might have be more "W European" due to Cold War stuff, notwithstanding certain issues that could be called more North/South than East/West). --Yalens (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• The first sentence in the article is "Western Europe is the region comprising the western part of Europe". What is so difficult to understand about the geographic terms 'region', 'East', 'West', 'North' or 'South'? This article is clearly about geography, not culture. Hmains (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • One section which is tiny covers "climate" which could be called geography. No clear geographic bounds are given and the other sections-- history (almost exclusively human history), language, economy, etc, all discuss phenomena deriving from human society. So it's clearly not mostly about geography. If you'd like to remake it to be mostly about geography that's another discussion. --Yalens (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • For other articles, see Western world and Western culture. This article should not duplicate those articles. Hmains (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Related, but not identical concepts. Western Europe is a similar sociopolitical region especially within intra-EU politics. Also relevant tho not identical "areas" are discussed in areal linguistics, economics, etc. This article barely mentions geography. You should really start a new thread if you're arguing here we should make it primarily about geography. I'm willing to move this discussion there. That would be such a makeover that it might as well be a new page, as only 3 lines of the present page discuss that topic. Also-- is there any agreed upon, reliably sourced, and unambiguous geographical boundaries for Western Europe? I've never heard of any. --Yalens (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
        • @ Hmains, you said: The first sentence in the article is "Western Europe is the region comprising the western part of Europe". What is so difficult to understand about the geographic terms 'region', 'East', 'West', 'North' or 'South'? This article is clearly about geography, not culture. and this is exactly my point too: [30]. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 07:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
        • @ Yalens, you said: Also-- is there any agreed upon, reliably sourced, and unambiguous geographical boundaries for Western Europe? I've never heard of any. it isn't easy to find a reliably sourced geographical definition of WE, and this is the biggest problem we are having at this moment. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 07:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
          • imo the issue is that Western Europe actually doesn't have any clear boundary, its meaning varies with contexts and in some it's contested. The page should be acknowledging these issues (and referencing in-domain RS for things like languages and economy), rather than asserting one definition as objective fact. In my view at least. --Yalens (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)