Talk:Western Europe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Problems

This article says: Up to World War I, "Western Europe" was thought to comprise France, the British Isles and Benelux. These countries represented the democratic victors of both world wars

Huh???

Can you please specify what countries were considered in this region during WW2, with NATO and Iron Curtain

User:24.189.3.230 02:06, May 14, 2004

Why is Belgium missing from the table in "Population of Western Europe"??? 86.173.102.81 (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Germany

Why would countries that are in Central Europe such as Germany, be considered part of Western Europe? It makes it very confusing.

User:Europekid2oo4 00:00, May 14, 2004

I think most people would really be annoyed if Germany started another WW. If that were to happen the big guns of the world might just wipe Germany off the face of the Earth. If I were Germany I wouldn't try to take over the world again.

Hmm, that is the most obvious and dummest statement I have seen in a long time. First of all Germany started the WWII no doubts about it, but it did not start WWI all the european countries are guilty of that. The statement (above) is entirly correct but soo obvious. Everybody knows that, especially the Germans. I assure that they have lost any ambitions to conquer the world through military means. They prefer to conquer the world by bying the other countries, its cheaper and assured. In fact, no country has the power to conquer he world, even the allmighty USA. You just have to love the concept of assured mutual nuclear destruction, the great reason for peace. Flamarande 08:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Roman Empire

Spain is part of Western Europe, and it was conquered by the Muslims.

Parts of Italy were part of the Eastern Roman Empire, as well.

corvus13

Actually, neither 'Spain' nor 'Italy' existed at the time. Probably the crucial difference was between those areas where the writ of the Roman pontificate ran versus those where it did not. This was to remain crucial; the Reformation was a reaction against the RC church and made little or no headway in Eastern Orthodox areas, etc. Greece is a difficult case: the cradle of Western civilization was not in the Western Empire. Filiocht 11:51, 27 January 2005 (UTC)

More problems

This article says:

Western Europe is typically thought to include Scandinavia, Poland, Germany, Austria, Italy, and those nations further west.

Maybe some Poles might think of Poland as being part of Western Europe, but I think most people would say it is part of Central or Eastern Europe. This article gets several historical facts wrong (see comment of corvus13 above). While I don't actually know, the claim that Eastern Europe never developed any liberal politicial institutions of its own, but had to import them from the West, seems to me a bit questionable (a statement like that needs evidence).

What differences in culture are between Poland and Western Countries? After all, Poland in XVI century was far more democratic than most of Western Europe, more tolerant etc. Ever heard about postulata polonica? Hungary, another perfect example - they had some rights of freedom granted even before Poland szopen

Also, this article makes no mention of Communism, the Cold War and the Iron Curtain, which were important in shaping the modern conception of Western vs. Eastern Europe. (The West was the parts composed by the liberal democracies, the East by the communists – this was just as important a part of the definition of E. Europe to the contemporary mind as questions of geography or medieveal or ancient history.) – SJK

I have totally rewritten the article from the point of view of the current situation. It now needs someone to put the historical meat on it to explain:

1. East v West during the Cold War
2. Earlier manifestations of a divided Europe e.g. Byzantine v Roman Empires etc.

sjc 07:19, 28 October 2001 (UTC)

Concerning Poland and the other reform states this article and the article about Eastern Europe clearly shows a typical American or British point of view of which they expect that everyone has to agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.59.40.20 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2003 (UTC)

Vatican

Minor quibble: is Vatican City really a country? I wouldn't call it a country. Technically speaking, Vatican City is not a state, the Holy See is a state, and Vatican City is merely territory possessed by the Holy See. And many scholars doubt whether the Holy See really is a state at all, since it is questionable whether it meets the legal criteria for statehood contained in the Montevideo convention. – SJK

It is certainly largely autonomous, although it is probably not technically a country. I'll strike it... sjc 07:19, 28 October 2001 (UTC)

Whatever

This article has gone beyond silly. French Guiana is also part of the EU, shouldn't it also be listed under "Western Europe"? I say we preemptively declare the whole world to be Western Europe and be done with it. :P --Shallot 10:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Eastern vs. Western Christianity, Socialism vs. Capitalism

Western and eastern europe can have a lot of differnts definitions. Historically, the oldest one is due to the division of the roman empire in 2 parts, one east, one west. The east part will give birth to the byzantine civilisation (based on orthodox religion); will the west part will give birth to catholica civilisation (and later to protestant civilisation) : what since this time we call "western civilisation"

In a very more recent time the meaning of western was changed by the american people in the meaning of "capitalist" and "americanized" countries. In this case you can say that east germany was not wetern while culturally if have been westerner since so much more time than the USA.

User:82.224.59.166 21:18, Jun 9, 2004

I have yet to meet a Polish person who would think of Poland as part of Western Europe. Moreover, how did Slovenia become a part of Western Europe?

User:69.194.45.9 05:34, Nov 17, 2004

So why Greece is a part of Western Europe?? 83.22.33.31 14:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Greece is considered a part of Western Europe because it was on the "Western/capitalistic/Democratic/US-influenced" side of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. Flamarande 11:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Up to World War I

Currently the article says:

Up to World War I, "Western Europe" was thought to comprise France, the British Isles and Benelux.

From when until World War I? And who thought it "this comprise[d] France, the British Isles and Benelux" ? Philip Baird Shearer 00:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a modern interpretation of history. Traditionally, western Europe refered to the difference between Catolic/Protestant Europe (including Poland... which was during a large part of history governed by other countries) and Ortodox Europe. It is a today's political view to equate "Western Europe" or the Western World with democracy. Before democracy began, the West was already West (and the East was already East...). It is in the Western part of Europe that the secularisation began. The diference is quite fundamental: in the early 1900's, the East was still heaving slavery. Germany was not a democracy but democracy was being discussed. It were also the Western states of the East bloc that resisted Soviet rule: Hungaria, Polonia, Czech Republic and the Baltic states. 83.162.19.42 21:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

British Isles

Why use the term British Isles? See IONA. – Philip Baird Shearer 00:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They refer to Ireland as well as Brittian. Jaxad0127 06:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Estonia removed

I removed the sentence stating that - Estonia is sometimes considered a Nordic Country and may also sometimes be considered Western Europe. I have never seen the country refered to as Western Europe in any reference in either English, German, or French (the languages I speak). Obviously someone on the planet might consider it as such but it is not common enough of a notion to be included here.

--84.153.37.201 00:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)Harold

I think your removal was not quite unmotivated. However, the context somehow put the Slovenian ambition to be counted as Western European on equal footing with the Estonian ambition to be counted as one of the Nordic countries (and hence indirectly as Western European).

It's a weakness of Wikipedia, that we have no good instrument to handle situations like these. Your argument, Harold, is that you've never seen this referred to in any language you know, and that is a negative statement that is pretty hard to make evident, unfortunately. I believe many Wikipedians, including the one who undid your removal, think that it wasn't added on a whim, and had stood "the test of time", and hence maybe it ought to be removed by someone who reads Estonian – or something like that.

This is not to say that you are, necessarily, wrong, only that many Wikipedians may tend to treat the text conservatively in this kind of case. Maybe you are located closer to Slovenia than to Estonia (culturally, linguistically, geographicaly...), and maybe this makes your judgement skewed. It's hard to tell, but easy to suspect.

Personally, I think the attractiveness of a perceived belonging to Western Europe is the interesting phenomenon that these examples illustrate, but I see no better way to make that point than by examples.

Regards!

--Johan Magnus 06:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Johan, your arguments are good, but the fact remains this is the English language Wikipedia and I have never come a English texts or reference where Estonia is connected to Western Europe, even through its indirect connections to the Nordic Countries. It seems most logical to me that the article inform about areas that are generally or even occasionally considered parts of Western Europe.. and not just areas that may in their cultural context want to see themselves as western Europe or western European. Estonia as a former Soviet republic in a northeastern section of Europe is rarely, and I emphasize rarely if ever, mentioned as being a Western European state in the English-speaking world. I have never seen this and for the reason I do not think it is justified to mention the fact the country here. If you have any references to counter my arguments please provide them, otherwise I will continue to stick with my arguments. --84.153.6.152 13:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)Harold

Estonia is not Nordic, nor Western European. Amazing stupidity. However, this is the perfect place for the retardization of facts.

Well estonia does share much more culture and language wise with nordic countries (especially finland) than with eastern-european countries. There was even a discussion to change estonian tricolor flag to resemble the ones of nordic countries. This idea was buried quickly. The geographical location doesn't really fit into western europe. It might be somewhat concidered nordic, but it appears the sea between Estonia and Finland is the borderline of nordic and non nordic countries. (It should be noted that the southern areas of Sweden and Norway are much more in south than Estonia is.) The discussion about Estonians sometimes identifying themselves as nordic people is somewhat relevant IMO. Suva 11:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland is Western European, not Central European!

LOL! John Calvin's society were all Western Europeans. How is Suisse distant from France? TheUnforgiven 22:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You talk as if there's a specific boundary between Central and Western. I say that Switzerland is both Western European (if we only divide europe in two sections, Western and Eastern) and Central European (if we divide it in three, Western, Central, Eastern and always depending where we put the dividing lines ). Meanwhile "Central Europe"+Switzerland gives 725.000 results, so wikipedia's not invented placing Switzerland there. Cheers! Aris Katsaris 00:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Burgundian Geneva was the capital of Western European Protestantism (minus Anglicanism), which was John Calvin's residence after moving from France. Luther and many of those other Germanic guys dealt with Northern European Protestantism. I think that these Wikipedia articles don't reflect the society of Europe. When I think of Swiss bankers( and chocolates, cheese, clocks, army knives, etc), France or Lombardy (and Belgium) also comes to mind. Granted, Liechtenstein and Austria are Central European but that is because of their history and culture despite the shared terrain with Switzerland. How popular is Austria in American social culture, compared to Switzerland? http://www.ricola.com/ is a common product in America, but what about Austrian products? Weiners are the only things I can think of that are of Austrian origin in America. Again, please explain how Burgundy is Central European? Not trying to be aggressive with you, but the Hundred Years' War and the House of Orange-Nassau were not ever based in Central Europe. We could make Franken/Franconia Central European because of Charlemagne, but Burgundy is Western European. Drang nach Osten, deals more with Central Europe. Tradition tells us these things and also as is remarked, Geneva is a Celtic name. Can we base the regional definitions of Europe upon this?: North West Europe=Celtic...North Central Europe=Germanic...North East Europe=Slavic...South West Europe=Hispanic...South Central Europe=Italic...South East Europe=Hellenic. The Finno-Ugric peoples and Bulgarians don't fit into this regular ideal of popular culture. Here's an example of the way I see it: After William III of Orange took the joint throne with Mary II of England, most American colonies of Western European blood had been continuing their loyalty. After the Frankish House of Hanover came to the fore, colonial rebellions became as common as Jacobitism. Calvinism and Lutheranism don't mix very well. What do you think about what I wrote here? Is there any merit? TheUnforgiven 01:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Yodeling is part of popular culture for Western Europeans and Americans. TheUnforgiven 05:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree. As a cultural concept, western Europe refered to the difference between Catolic/Protestant Europe and Ortodox Europe. Of course, Switzerland is part of Western Europe. "Central Europe" is more a geopgraphic concept. 83.162.19.42 21:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Switzerland, Germany and Austria were considered part of the "West" at the onset of the Cold war alltough Switzerland and Austria were neutral. Flamarande 21:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The above aside, the UN scheme of geographic sub/regional classifications – which is as neutral as we're gonna get (no pun intended) – places CH in Western Europe and has no classification of Central Europe ... likely because it is obviated by other regions in its scheme. 22:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the UN scheme is as far I can see a geographic sheme which neglects the political and cultural reality. The term "Western Europe" is mainly used and understood with its political and cultural importance. Flamarande 17:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a problem? There is no requirement that this article focus solely on sociopolitical or militaristic underpinings that vary both temporally and definitively; in fact, it opens it up. As well, visit articles with involving a cardinal direction – e.g., the West, the North – and you'll note similar distinctions. And the UN scheme is indisputably verifiable and indicated to differ. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not demanding that we erase the geographic definition, leave it as it is. The article was, as I found it, mainly about the political/cultural concept but I guess that we can leave both defitions: the geographical and the political/cultural one aslong both of them are clearly presented as such. Flamarande 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nordic countries

"5 of the 6 Nordic countries". What is the sixth? I visited the hyperlink to Nordic countries to find out the answer - only to be told that there are five Nordic countries! -86.134.47.32 19:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question, but then I checked closer and found out that there is some weird dispute coming from Estonia - who claim with all their heart to be somewhat Nordic, kinda. Seeing as we let the Finns in, I suppose I see their point, but it seems very odd to most Nordic people and I'd actually never heard of this contention before (I'm Icelandic).

Perhaps it would be better to include a reference to what the "supposed" sixth country is, rather than simply stating there are six when no official position (non-Estonian, that is) exists to back up that claim. However, I see from earlier discussions that there has been some dispute about how to bring up the Estonian issue, probably resulting in it's deletion but somehow the "5 out of 6" still got left in.

--- G.

Elbe as the dividing line

I would think that, historically (pre-1870?), the Elbe could be considered a division between Western and Eastern Europe, with large differences in the organisation of agriculture and land ownership. Further south, the Austrian empire and anything south or east of it should be considered non-WE. Jørgen 20:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Elbe was in the middle of Germany pre-1870, how would you clasiefy that country? Western or Eastern ? Flamarande 21:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Germany didn't exist then. As far as I know, the Prussian government had strong Eastern characteristics. Post-1870, I would say that parts of Germany was Eastern, parts Western. The western parts were more industrialized, while the East still depended more on agriculture (of course with important exeptions). Does that sound OK? Jørgen 13:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can see your point and agree with it to certain extent, but I don´t know. As far as I know the term "Western Europe" appeared as such with the the Cold War. There had been other divisions before, like the Western Roman Empire vs Eastern Roman Empire vs the "Barbarian Rest". Later there was Francia or Roman Catholics vs Greek Orthodox vs Islam.

The cultural border of the Elbe had more sense at the time of Charlemagne because at that time it was the eastern border of his Frankish Empire. After him the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation simply keept on expanding into the East. That empire (as far as I know) was considered the baulwark of civilized Europe against the somewhat "barbarian/nomadic" tribes. That empire extended beoynd the Elbe.

In the 1800´s there were many empires and kingdoms (British, Prussian, Austrian, Russian, French, Spanish, etc) which were rocked by the French Revolution. After the conflict was over, these countries reformed themselves. Some of them industrialised and became more, shall we say "liberal", others didn´t. We can´t use industry as the definition of a division of Europe for the German Empire was heavily industrialized (your point above "organisation of agriculture and land ownership"). As far as I know there was no clear cultural division in Europe except the political (Central Powers vs Triple Entente). The Austrian Empire and the German Empire at that time, were equal in cultural terms to the French Republic and The British Empire. We even have the Second French Empire of Napoleon III during some time. Was there a cultural division? Perhaps, but where were the borders of it? Did the term "Western Europe" appear at that time ? I don´t think so.

To make it short: I don´t think that the term "Western Europe" (as we know it) was used during that time and even if it was, I think that Austria and Germany were allready part of the "West". The idea of "Western" vs "Eastern" appeared mainly with the Bolshevik revolution, was coined by Goebbels and really became fashionable during the Cold War with the famous speech of Churchill. But hey that is my opinion, I don´t claim to know the whole truth. If you or anyone don´t agree with it please give me your reasons and we will debate it in this Talkpage Flamarande 18:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a thorough answer! I do not have the time to delve into this right now, but I am not sure it's wrong to apply the term retroactively even though it was not used at the time (cf. describing The Great War as World War One. I'll see if I can look into some of my history books to check some more on this. But probably not today. Jørgen 07:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The term was extensively used by the Russian intelligentsia in the 19th century, who made clear difference between Western Europe and the Eastern, non-Germanic and non-Romance (with the exception of Romania) part. User:Humanophage 22:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is simply wrong (in my opinion)+ major overhaul

Hi, I am Flamarande (obviously). I found this article and was stunned by it´s content and I plan to correct it throughly. Somehow, I kind off jumped out as I began, but I was 213.22.236.175. Any questions or disputes with the contents of my edits should be presented in this Talkpage so that a agreement can be achieved.

This article presents Germany as a "alpine country" and part of "central europe". I can only protest against this factually wrong presentation of history and culture. Ok, I can understand that until the end of WWII it is somewhat debatable to present Germany as part of the "Western Europe" (alltough I personaly think it would be accurate). But after that conflict? Give me a break, with the onset of the Cold war the western parts occupied by the "western allies", the USA, UK, France joined into the the Federal Republic of Germany. The Iron curtain divided "old" Germany between thew East and the West, but this article fails to acknowledge that the "western part" of Germany was universally considered part of the "West". I mean it was part of Nato, it was and is a parlamentary Democracy, etc. I can only ask: "who wrote this"? Flamarande 00:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOVs

I removed a few NPOV paragraphs, some may be able to be rewritten and used properly for this article, however, I felt in their current form, they should just be deleted instead of being left on the article. Replace them if you want, but please fix them if you do. - Rudykog 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, how are we supposed to fix them if you simply delete them? If you see something wrong with this article, correct it. If it is challenged, then it will be debated in this talk page.

Caption of image at the top

I find it strange to see in the caption of the image at the top "Note that Greece should be included in this map." We either decide that it should be included and we modify the map, or we take that sentence out, right? --Mihai 01:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Replaced the troublesome map with a better one. Flamarande 17:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this "common understanding", and related map, at all sourced? While it isn't disagreeable per se, I will be compelled to replace it with something that is. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

To be really honest the image itself is not sourced in any book in particular. My main sources for my improvements are The Making of Europe ISBN 0-14-015409-4, Crescent and Cross ISBN 1-84212-753-5, The Normans ISBN 0-7524-2881-0 and 1066 The Year of the Three Battles ISBN 0-7126-6672-9. Besides all these books that I own, my common knowledge and many other books that I have read but do not own personnaly. I live in Western Europe and I consider myself quite educated (while not a savant). I found this article and was simply amazed by its wrongness and so I decided to improve it. Look, I am just a wannabe scholar (in other words a nerd) who simply reads alltoo many books about history and politics. I also read some serious newspapers and watch CNN and BBC. Before my improvements there was a article who failed to acknowledge West Germany as part of Western Europe. I hope that my references are good enough to satisfy your curiousity. Flamarande 17:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there might be a problem. If Western Europe is interpreted largely politically, for instance, Switzerland and Austria (et al.) might justifiably be excluded due to their positions of neutrality throughout much and since the Cold War. (They wouldn't be included in Eastern Europe either.) If anything, a map based on membership in the Western European Union – current, prior, or tiered – might be a better basis for a map herein. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality was not the main issue in that definition, if it were soo then Albania and Youguslavia would also not have been considered part of Eastern Europe. It was like this: Democratic and Capitalist = Western Europe. Communist = Eastern Europe. I explained their strangeness in the neutral/problematic paragraph. Flamarande 18:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That why I noted et al. (and others) above. One of my issues is that, now, neutrality might be just as germane ... in any event, the definitions are still tenuous. Most of the territories in the region are now capitalist or on their way there (e.g., if EU membership is any indication). I'm still concerned that the article and map remains somewhat subjective regarding distinctions and definitions ... I will peruse and edit shortly. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalist vs Communist was the original definition. Neuttral counties in Europe were classified by their political/economic sytem. Notice the last pargraph which clearly shows that the political reality has changed, but that old Western Europeans are being nostaligic and many of them fell themselves superior towards the eastern countries. Flamarande 18:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the article text per se (though it stands for improvement): if it's the original definition (sourced?), this should be in the caption. It is currently vague. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Slovenia

The text is contradictory to what is on the image, either remove Slovenia from the map or add it to the text. I don't know if is common to put Slovenia in the western europe. I think is more common to put it in the eastern part, but i'm not sure. --Seba 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How could everyone overlook that country? You are right, Slovenia is not commonly considered part of Western Europe, and as soon as I find a better map I will replace the current one. Thanks for your sharp eyes. Flamarande 19:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, i've fixed the map. --Seba 21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I might be seing it wrong somehow, but Slovenia is still yellow. Flamarande 10:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't refreshed? :o I see it in gray. --Seba 17:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikification + Neutrality

The entire "Europe carefully divided until the Cold War" section sounds all wrong. It's opinionated, persuasive, biased and uses too many assertations of truth. It isn't encylopedic. Stuff like this shouldn't be in an article:

"To simply simplify it, is dangerous, for there were always exceptions to all rules and even more in the case of history. Despite all that, some lessons can be learned from it."

Wikipedia is not a Publisher of original thought. Also, it seems to have little to do with the topic at hand. Opinions? --Kinst 01:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I never claim to know the whole truth, but I know that I read, and have read and studied alot about european history and that I stand by this article and that paragraph in particular (I wrote it, and I reformed the whole article). If you think that the paragraph is wrong ("sounds all wrong"), please show me my mistakes and present me with your interpretation of european history. Who knows? perhaps you can convince me that I am mistaken and that you are correct. As for the phrase ("to simply simplify...") it may not be encyclopedic but at least it warns the average reader to be careful and to question any simple presentation of hundered of years of history = wars, politics, treachery and doublecrosses. As for: "Wikipedia is not a Publisher of original thought" I can only reply that I have read alot of books about european history and I tried to sumarise the gained knowledge into this article. If that is considered "original thought" then I am guilty as charged. What am I supposed to do? Copy all the texts of all the books into this article? As for: "it seems to have little to do with the topic at hand" you really must be joking with me. The topic is "western europe" and the historical past "seems to have little to do with" it? Flamarande 20:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to present my interpretation of European history because firstly, I don't have one, and secondly, Wikipedia isn't for "historical interpretation" as Jimbo Wales said. I don't think that your opinion is wrong, just that it's an opinion, and so doesn't belong. It's an unpublished theory or argument on European history. That's what makes it sound all wrong to me. Please read the "What is Excluded" section of Wikipedia:No_original_research. I think it applies strongly here.

On the section's relevance to the article, "Europe carefully divided until the Cold War" is about all of European history, and with excessive length. This article is about Western Europe. The section doesn't even speak of the facts of pre-Cold War Western Europe, but instead presents a general theory for all of Europe's diplomacy. Ie. It could talk about Western Europe's industrial development, creation of democracies, or early hints of it unifying. Instead it doesn't say the words Western Europe [i]once[/i].

As for what to do, I don't know. Brainstorm? My inclination is to remove the whole thing and start following WWII, with something saying that Europe was not divided into East/West until then. --Kinst 21:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Done Flamarande 16:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it a little bit more and, though I think the article needs more work, I won't press it further. Thank you. :-) If you disagree with what I changed please discuss. --Kinst 18:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Portugal

I barely know anything about this country.

Don´t tell that to a portuguese. They are so full of themselves and it annoys them if someone says such a thing. You have to read the articles about Portugal. Flamarande 08:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh really??--viriatus 15:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

the cool image is under scrutiny

Hmmm, it seems that the image that was recently added is under scrutiny. The user who added it (source) has to provide info about its origins (where it came from), or it will be deleted completely. Bloody hell, I liked that image. Flamarande 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Top image

In the top image, Image:Europe-western-countries.png, is there any reason that France + GB + Benelux are in a different shade of yellow than the rest of Western Europe? Deuar 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that some very tecnical scholars consider the Benelux, the brits and the froggies as the finest examples of western civilization, and therefore a bit better than the rest of europe. How goes the saying: "everybody is equal but some ppl are more equal than others" ? You must not forget that such fellings of cultural superiority were regarded quite proper and natural until the the end of WWII Flamarande 18:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I see San Marino and the other tiny countries have also fallen ot of favour with the cartographer ;-) Deuar 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

These tiny countries are mostly ignored by everybody (hey, that´s a fact). I really wish to know how to make maps, but I guess that it is quite difficult. Flamarande 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am French myself and I consider irelevant your comments about about the idea that we would think ourselves as better than other Western Europeans,(being the "finest exemples of western civilisation" as you said it). I abslolutly don't feel that way. I am surprised too with the second definition of western Europe which is done on this article, wich implies that France and the Benelux would be more "western European" than other countries such as Spain, Portugal, Germany or Italy for exemple. No one in France will think it that way. Spain and Portugal are obviously as much western European than we are (even more geographically, just have to look a map!). Italy and Germany are of course as much Western European as we are too.

I wonder who on Earth uses such a narrowed and inacurate definition of western Europe which doesn't corespond to nothing !!

Nothing geographically (Iberia should be included, since it is more West), doesn't correspond to nothing economically/politically (all western Europe is democratic and developped) and nothing in a cultural definition (UK and Netherlands are mainly Protestant and of germanic culture while France is catholic and of romance language)...

I think it is just a very old-fashionned classification which was once used in some geopolitical classifications of the pre-WW2 world. This definition is irrelevant and sould be deleted or be put in a section called "old usages of the expression". Fabb leb 20:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, take a deep breath, calm down, and read more precisly what I wrote: "some very tecnical scholars consider...". Of course I don´t think that the French today consider themselves better than anyone else (a bit perhaps). It was a bit of humour which you took for a serious insult, and clearly indicated as such by the word "frogie" :) . I am a bloody European and damn proud of it.

But fact is that almost every nation considered itself better than any other nation, and such belief was encouraged by everybody, its called Nationalism and its still not gone today. It was much stronger not a few decades ago. And give me a break: not so long the British and the French culture was considered better than any other culture, and was accepted as such. French was the language "per excellencé", French and Benelux cuisine, French and British literature, French and Benelux painters, French clothing (la modé), British explorers, British scientists, British doctors, it goes on and on. Why do we (Europeans) fell a bit superiour towards the Americans (we do, be really honest)? Why are so many ppl shouting against "American imperialism" like MacDonalds, Hollywood movies, etc (these persons are pinheads in my opinion)?

Today things are diffrent (are they really ?), but Portugal, Spain and even Italy (among soo many others) were universaly considered 2nd rate countries in the 17th, 18th, and early 20th centuries well behind France and the British empire. Read for example Black Legend.

"All western Europe is democratic and developped" TODAY Fullstop. Democracy came much later to these countries, or are you going to deny Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, and António de Oliveira Salazar ? All these countries were under the rule of fascist dictators who supported Hitler and became democratic only in the 1970´s, mere 30 years ago. As for being developped, you are whitewashing things. Spain became a true industrial power quite recently and Portugal...Portugal simply isn´t there yet.

And like it or not, the term "Western Europe" came from the times of the Cold war, but is influenced by older notions. If we deny the older notions, we would be simply ingnoring our past. If we deny our past we will never learn anything, will we? It isn´t a CLEAR geographic ,economical/political ,cultural difinition, if you don´t care to learn history. Flamarande 09:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC) PS:If you want, you can look at this article at the 20:51, 12 February 2006

I want to precise that the narrowded definition of "western Europe" used from the classification of the UN includes the UK and Ireland in northern Europe. So, the map is wrong and should show France, Benelux and Germany but not UK. Anyway this definition is inaccurate and unusefull outside of the UN works and the UN administrative classifications. --Fabb leb 21:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The current image shows the current common understanding of Western Europe (by normal people, not useless bureaucrats), and is in fact quite accurate. The definition of the UN is simply useless, nobody I know uses it, and it (the UN definition) can kiss my as*. Nevertheless it exists (if only in some useless UN papers and internet sites) and should remain here, as a sidednote. I like the UN and it is certainly better than nothing, but their incompetence in almost everything is sad, simply sad. Flamarande 22:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What the...? Is this definition a joke?

Okay, we'll start with the fact that the article says "the following nine countries," and then proceeds to list ten countries. That's a red flag right there.

Secondly, I can't imagine the UN would be so sloppy. Italy but not San Marino or the Vatican? Germany but not Denmark? And what the hell happened to Andorra, Spain, and Portugal?

I'm changing the article; I don't know what the U.N. says, so I'm deleting the list outright. Twin Bird 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you can debate with user 80.104.96.190 who "improved" this article at 20:54, 16 June 2006. He is probably Italian and therefore added that country. Despite this, the list was correct (they were only nine before the "improvement"). I provided a link to the proper UN site for the article. Notice that the UN definition is largely useless as almost noone uses it. The text deals with the common use of that term and not with the UN definition. Flamarande 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The user who had added Italy is right. Everybody have alway considered Italy to be in Western Europe; More than this Italy is historically the country of western Europe the most influent it has never had. The UN classifications are completly arbitrary - and are mainly of pure administrative reason but not cultural or geographic. Excluding Spain and Portugal is aslo excluding two of the most important western European countries of its own land.--82.224.59.166 19:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Slovenia and Cyprus

An anonymous user is continually placing Slovenia in the list of western european countries under the heading

A current understanding of Western Europe includes the following countries

Now I have never seen Slovenia in a list of western european countries. It's just plainly east of the customary dividing line that used to be the "iron curtain". Sure, Slovenia has a much higher GDP per capita than other post-communist countries, but that is not the usual criterion that most people use when referring to "western europe" (perhaps apart from Slovenians? I wouldn't know about that). The usual criterion is 20th century history, and Slovenia shares at least its last 80 years of history with postocommunist countries, not western europe. I would not expect other postcommunist countries to suddenly become "western europe" upon reaching some economic threshold, and I don't see why Slovenia is any different. However, please, if you do have some reasonably authoritative sources which list Slovenia as a western european country, do tell ... Deuar 20:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

While i'm on this topic, Cyprus was on the list for a while as well. It has a relatively high GDP, but so what? It's so far east that calling it western europe is pretty crazy. In fact it's not even in Europe (geographically speaking). Deuar 20:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent political developments and modern Western Europe

I'm removing the paragraph mentioning the quoting of Jacques Chirac:

• It doesn't seem relevant to notions of what Western Europe is. Chirac doesn't mention Eastern or Western Europe in the cited interview (http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/europe/conf-chirac, in French).
• Chirac's words in this interview describe one diplomatic action, not the signatory governments or countries as a whole.

If someone wishes to re-instate these words, then please try to address the following minor points:

• Mention that the words are from an interview rather than necessarily a prepared speech, and cite the interview in question (URL given above).
• The "dangers" part is out of context: here it appears like a veiled threat from Chirac, whereas the original names the source of danger as various countries' referendums that are yet to take place.
• Why say "is quoted" ? Is this merely to distance us from the claim that he really did say these words, or is the wide quotation of these couple of phrases significant to the reader's understanding of Western Europe? (Also, there's some ambiguity: I wondered whether Rumsfeld had quoted Chirac when using the phrase "Old Europe", but apparently Rumsfeld's remarks precede Chirac's.)

Two words: Vae Victis. Let's pretend that many Western europeans don't fell themselves (and their countries) superiour towards the eastern europeans countries. No, even better, let's claim that the old east-west divide doesn't exist anymore, it faded away completly after 1989. What are you demanding: a unambigous statement of the western ppl telling that the eastern countries are second-rate? There is no such statement (where you expecting a large Anti-eastern gathering with the proper slogans?) but such a fellings exist or are you living in a dream world?

There is a divide between western and eastern Europe. It shows itself in small sneaky ways. An example as the eastern countries became official EU members they recieved limited Shengen rights. Why? I tell you why: because some countries are more equal than others.

The eastern countries recieved real full independence in 1989. As soon as possible most of them wanted to become members of NATO and of the EU. Out of one "empire" into another. Why? Well you can defend that they wanted to catch up with western Europe. I am a bit of a cynic - realist, I rather believe that they wanted to join first because of cold hard cash (EU development funds) and also to secure their independence against Russia through NATO. Now someone can say that they were accepted with open arms. But where they really? How many years had they to wait before they became NATO members? How many years had they wait before some of them became EU members?

Do some of these countries really become part of a new European federal state (because that's the real plan, don't be fooled with political statements about souveran nations)? Many want to, others really want only cash. The second group is defending their souveranity with all kind of political manouvers.

That's what really happened: In the Iraq war the US and the UK recieved a big diplomatic hit by France and Germany (who want to present the EU as the liberal alternative), and were desperate to show the world that the invasion was not a stupid adventure of two big bullies. So they kissed some as* and the Eastern countries who wanted to hit the French and the Germans in the *uts stated that they were at the side of the US. So basicly they bit the hand that was feeding them. Chirac was pis*ed off and said that statement clearly meaning the Eastern coutries. In the fine link you provided it is shown even clearer: "Si elles voulaient diminuer leurs chances d’entrer dans l’Europe, elles ne pouvaient pas trouver un meilleur moyen" - "If they want to diminish their chances of joining Europe they couldn't have picked a better means" (that's the real meaning and not a word for word translation).

Face it: Europe is still divided and the East is still considered second class. The ppl of WE won't tell it in your face though and the youth will deny it, but that is simple political correctness.

And before someone begins to accuse me of rassism, or trying to divide the Europeans or whatever: I am a bloody European. I am a Western European, but I think that we really need the Eastern countries. But I will not deny the historical and political truth (that we still are very divided - and that the WE considers itself better than the EE) in the name of political correctness. Flamarande 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Please sign your statements with 4 "~".

"Europe before the Cold war" section

The text I encountered in this section was pretty poor quality containing many weasel words and peacock terms, so I have tried to make it more "encyclopedic". Tell the truth this section appears to be an attempt to "explain the causes of World War II". It is not clear to me at all what its relevance to the concept of Western Europe is. In fact Western Europe was not even mentioned anywhere in that section. I would like to suggest removing this section altogether since I am sure that the causes of WWI and WWII are explained much better in their own articles.

On a slightly different topic - there was an image Image:Centum_Satem_map.png in this section, whose relevance was again completely opaque. If it is actually relevant, could someone please explain before putting it in? Deuar 15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that section in an small effort to explain that the modern term only began its use since the end of WWII. I didn't think it was that bad, sorry. I think this improved version is quite good and think we should leave as it is.

About the image: USER:Nixer added it, but I fail to see its relevance. Leave it deleted.

Somebody keeps adding Slovenia in some sort of national inferiority complex, I am quite inclined to either request a ban upon the user (dubious because he has a mobile IP) or request a partial protection of this article. Flamarande 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, now I see your point for including that section. Sounds good. ... and I wish the Slovenia adder would get over that (very unnecessary) inferiority complex. Deuar 13:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovenia

In reaction to Flamarande's last comment here (just above this). I know edit-conflict can be frustrating but there a better ways to resolve the issue. I am indifferent to the inclusion of Slovenia, but a good discussion here or a request for comment, can solve the issue, while making threats and insulting people won't. I propose we have a decent discussion about the issue! - C mon 18:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself a very tolerant dude (it might be self-delusion though :). I quite like this small article and reformed it to a large extent (I am not its master but I certainly feel its Keeper). I also have accepted many compromises and have deleted several passages as you can check out in the history and follow in talkpage (I was interrested in presenting European history but another User pointed out that it dangerously close to POV - and I had to agree, he was right.

But a anonymous user (AU) (whom I suspect to be from Slovenia - I might be wrong, but I think not) keeps adding Slovenia as a Western European country in this article. User:Deuar correctly reverted these "improvements" but the AU keeps doing it again and again (he is nearing the 20 mark very soon).

Deuar allready proposed to debate the issue on this talkpage only to be ignored by the AU. AU began to challenge the inclusion of Greece, Malta, and Cyprus. Greece's status is beyond any doubt: is widely considered a part of WE, the other two are a bit more ambigous, being fair these later two were removed.

As he refused to debate the issue, I explained to him that Slovenia is not a part of WE because it was on the "eastern side" of the Iron Courtain (comments on the history page). The AU even had the gall to simply chang the "yellow map" to include Slovenia (in fact he reused a old map which included Slovenia - a simple honest mistake).

Again AU simly ignored the explanation and continued with his sneaky changes.

I am sorry if I am sounding frustated, but fact is that AU is slowly beginning to get on my nerves. He has a moving IP and is simply doing sneaky changes and ignores any explanation or offer of reasonable debate.

And being really honest: I really think that some nationalists of the eastern countries are trying to rewrite history to improve the standing of their countries (how falsefying history will improve that is beyond me). I have seen this behaviour in several articles and I will be damned if I don't revert it at least in this article. Why do they deny their own history? Again being completly honest: I believe they are sufferring from inferiority complexes. Well too bad. History is history and should not be used as political propaganda or be twisted to assure national feelings.

History is a humane science and is therefore always imperfect (unlike mathematics, physics, and chemistry) but we are obliged to write it down as best as we know it and not to twist as we want to (almost all historians are guilty of that sin - sad but true)

To simply accept the behaviour of AU and his "improvemnts" in name of lazyness or political correctness I leave for politicians and fools (I not calling anyone here a fool, nor lazy - only those who know better, but don't want go through the trouble in the name of political correctness). Flamarande 21:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Slovene (don't worry, not your friend the AU), and I'd just like to say a few things as clarification (not justification). There is a long series of socio-political factors at hand here, and perhaps you can understand them better comming from the mouth (well, keyboard) of a level-headed Slovene (at least I hope I can prove to be one). First and foremost - the line of reasoning that Yugoslavia was behind the Iron curtain was expressed. You must understand that in Yugoslavia, the independance from the USSR and the fact that even as a communist country Yugoslavia was nevertheless free of the Warshaw pact yolk and never actively involved in the Cold war was always seen as something of an achievement the people were proud of. Consequently, we don't see ourselves as a nation that was behind the Iron curtain, and the simple assertion of "You were behind the Iron curtain, hence you are Eastern Europeans" is somewhat painful. Granted, the definition of the Iron curtain can be flexible, and in Churchill's speech, Yugoslavia was placed behind it. But by the time the Cold war was raging, Yugoslavia had managed to slip out of the bloc division and maintain a sort of state of limbo. If we are to be thorough, this fact must be acknowledged. Therefore the Iron curtain argument is flawed, or at least not understood similarly on both sides.

Another argument that was given is that of an inferiority complex. I think it has more to do with trying to escape the stereotypes that reign in the West regarding EE - just think of any Hollywood movie that even remotely mentions Eastern Europe. It has been made painfully clear to the Slovenes that we are seen as just another stereotypical EE country when Spielberg wanted to make that character from his movie The Terminal Slovene. To him, Slovenia was just an appropriate small Eastern European country. He just needed a funny character that would speak bad English and want Nike shoes and Levi's jeans more than anything - commodities that had been freely available since Slovenia was still part of Yugoslavia in the 80's, might I add. So the constant bickering by Slovenes to be seen as anything but an Eastern European country has got to do, in part, with these blatant and overall unfair stereotypes about EE as well. This is why Slovenes flaunt our country's economic development - because people like your AU believe that by proving that Slovenia is a rich country, this eternal "dirt poor Eastern European country where the men are plumbers and the women prostitutes" stereotype will somehow go away.

Anyhow, whether Slovenia is in the East or in the West ultimately depends on the definition of these two. The opening of this article effectively states two conditions - communism and sides in the Cold war. Slovenia is an Eastern European country according to one of these and not one according to the other. Then again, according to the opening sentence the communism in the East was brought by occupying Soviet forces, and Yugoslavia was never occupied by the Soviets. So, seen solely through the optic of the Cold war, it's kinda difficult to exactly place ex-Yugoslav countries anywhere, be it East or West (what Yugoslavia was perceived as is a different matter altogether, of course). However, since the next sentence goes on to say that nowadays it depends on politics and economy, one could put Slovenia on the East side. Both politics and economy are still transitional in Slovenia, no matter how strong the economy may be. I believe the economy won't be transitional for much longer, and Slovenia's recent entry into the Eurozone only strenghtens this belief, but at the time it still is. But in the end, all this doesn't really matter, as the East/West division of Europe is becoming more and more of an anachronism, IMO.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps. I know this is supposed to be a discussion, but I really don't have any suggestions at the time, other than that maybe the opening paragraph could be a wee bit more clear and include Yugoslavia as a country that was widely perceived as Eastern European because of it's political arangment, eventhough it wasn't a party in the Cold war. TomorrowTime 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that TomorrowTime, that's one of the most lucid explanations I've seen of why we East/Central/etc Europeans cringe at the "Eastern Europe" label. I'll have to try and remember it for when it comes in useful later. Digressing slightly, I always find it funny though, how from an Eastern European perspective all the Western countries are often also perceived as a characterless group. Like: "Spain, France, England, US, whatever − all generic rich western countries, with very little difference between them". At least until you've visited several.  ;-) Deuar 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Greenland

Greenland is not part of Western Europe in most "common understandings". Reason: geographically it's not even part of Europe! It is far on the American side of the Atlantic Ocean. While Greenland is closely associated with Western Europe politically via its links to Denmark this does not make it any more part of Europe geographically than e.g. French Guiana or Martinique despite all those places having members of Parliament in France. Another example: Siberia is not in Eastern Europe even though it's part of Russia. Deuar 15:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman/Church history

I just modified the history section to include the pre-20th century history. Although in popular culture it is largely forgotten, the Eastern/Western European distinctions actually go back the Roman Empire and the later schism in the Church. During the 19th and 20th centuries, of course, there was a whole new set of socio-political issues which altered these definitions but, even today, if you look geographically at the what most people consider East and West, the lines still largely follow the divisions in the Empire and in the Church (Greece being a notable exception which has to do with the Renaissance, the Turks, and early 19th century politics). --Mcorazao 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, kind of - if you allow several hundred km of slop either way. The other major discrepancy apart from Greece are the central european countries Poland, Czech republic and Slovakia which have been on the roman catholic side of the boundary for about a thousand years, but are not considered western europe today. By the way, I think it's good you put the new section in. Deuar 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the lines of separation are certainly not precisely the same. I just meant this in very broad strokes. --Mcorazao 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, long time since I have improved this article at all. I am afraid to ask this, but were the recent improvements sourced? By that I mean: did you base your improvements on a book or something else? Flamarande 15:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Huntington's "Clashing Civilizaton" concept and borders

I humbly suggest that the whole paragraph which includes the Clashing civilization by Huntington be revised and seriously improved. The concept of Western Europe commonly includes Eastern Orthodox Greece (widely considered the craddle of Western (European) civilization). Eastern Europe includes Poland, Slovenia, the Czech republic, the thre Baltic countries and other Protestant/Catholic countries. Eastern Europe includes Albania and the Kosovo region who AFAIK are majoritly Muslim. If you compare the maps you while notice that they simply don't agree with each other. The concept of "Western Europe" was widely defined by the Cold War (plus older historical developments) and AFAIK was absolutly not somehow re-defined by Huntington. To be honest his 'Civilization definition along religious lines' simply don't seem aply in the common understanding of Western Europe at all. Flamarande 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And by the way if someone wishes to include Huntingtons view (which he himself seesm to have recanted - at least according to his article) then please provide a proper source. As for the question why this article should present Huntingtons view about the concept "Western Europe" if his views do not define it at all I will leave for wiser minds to pounder. Flamarande 20:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Did the Russians liberate some countries from Nazi occupation or not + Finnish-Soviet wars

Please let's be a little more neutral in this issues. It's is a bit obvious:

Nazi Germany invaded, conquered, and occupied many Eastern European countries. The occupation was most cases quite brutal. Local Jews were sent to the concentration camps, lot's of ppl were enslaved; forced to work in German factories who produced war material. Many partisans were shoot (by the way that wasn't ilegal at all, but brutal nonetheless). Many of Eastern POW's (like the Poles) were not trated as mandated by the Geneva convention. Lot's of ppl simply starved to death. ETC

The Russian/Soviet armies eventually defeated the German Wehrmacht and forced them to retreat. On their retreat the Germans destroyed, and burned lot's of cities to the ground (like Warsaw). The Russian/Soviets themselves advanced and liberated many eastern countries. IF you don't like that verb, then I humbly suggest that you find a better one which we can use for both allied forces (Soviet and Western allies). I don't deny that Communist regimes were later forced upon these countries (by order of Stalin and through the threath of Soviet arms). But to boast that the Western allies 'liberated' while the Soviets 'occupied/conquered' (whatever) countries who had been conquered and brutally ocupied by the Germans is quite controversial. I am not excusing what happened afterwards (the later communist regimes, the secret police, the surpression of many liberties) but let's keep it a little neutral, OK? Flamarande 18:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well I underestand where you're coming from. One way to avoid emotionally tinging the article is to use the same word for the formation of both western allied and Soviet zones. That is, remove both 'liberated western europe' and 'occupied eastern europe' and replace with a different statement. We could talk about Western-controlled and Soviet-controlled 'zones' instead of liberation and occupation.

As for the question of "Did the Russians liberate some countries from Nazi occupation or not?" No. They abolished the Nazi occupation, but did not liberate them, even though it was an improvement. Simple. Deuar 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is simple (nothing at all). The Russian/Soviet armies liberated many countries from German/Nazi occupation but later imposed communist regimes upon them. Still the later development shold not deny that the German occupation was ended and that the countries were libertated. Flamarande 16:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And by the way Finland is commonly considered part of WE, as such it didn't became part of Eastern Europe, liberated from the Nazis and then subsequently 'occupied' by the Soviets. More importantly Finland was an enemy, fighting at the side of the Germans (De Facto an ally of the Axis). Enemy territory is occupied, conquered, and in some cases even annexed. Hmm, that reminds me of some recent events ;). Flamarande 14:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying that in 1944-45 Stalin "liberated" some European countries from the Nazis is equivalent to saying that in 1941 Hitler "liberated" some European countries from the Communists (and, albeit miserable, it was an improvement in some areas). Saying the first is an insult to the millions of people murdered by the Nazis, saying the second is a similar insult to the millions of people murdered by the Communists. Viipuri (Vyborg) was Finland's second largest city before WW2, and along with other areas annexed by the Soviets in SE Finland is now considered "Eastern Europe". Any suggestions that USSR (a totalitarian and terrorist regime) in 1939-1940 and 1944-45 was somehow able to "liberate" Viipuri and other parts of Finland (a democratic country) is an insult to intelligence. --Klamber 13:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied that you (Klamber) finaly dignify yourself to presenting your POV on the talkpage. Let me see if I understand you correctly: you don't like the use of the verb liberate apllied to the Soviet/Russian army? Well I don't like it either, but to keep the neutrality the same verb should be used both for the Soviet/Russians and the Western allies. To say that one (Soviet Union) conquered while the other one (Western allies) liberated is certainly not being neutral at all. No question about the advantages of democracy in WE "allowed" by the victorous Western allies, while EE had communist regimes imposed upon them. But that happenend after the liberation. And if you took care to notice the writting of: "liberated", the verb is between Quotation marks ( " ) showing the irony of the statement. As in: They "liberated" but their liberation wasn't true liberty.

If you are a Finn (whose family suffered during WWII?) then I can understand somewhat your POV. But don't forget that Finland (the democratic state) choose to fight at the side of Nazi Germany and Hitler. They choose to fight alongside the same army and nation that was commiting the Holocaust, mass shootings of civilians, brutal invasion of the Soviet Union, etc. Of course that the (later) annexed parts of Finland were not somehow liberated by the Russians; these territories were clearly conquered (I truly hope this is what you are so mad about). I certainly agree that this particular issue can (and should) be claryfied. But don't let your feelings interfere with a accurate historical understanding: the goverment of the Soviet Union was not 'a terrorist regime' (unless you consider the Partisan (military)s, especially Soviet partisans as terrorists, and then I must inform you that this is not the common/main/historical view). Someone may describe it as a dictatorship; but to be more accurate it was a Socialist republic.

This issue could have been presented in reasonable fashion a long time in the talkpage, instead of simply making full-scale reverts. That is the purpose of the Talkpages: someone sees a big mistake and he improves it. Someone else reverts it because of valid reasons. Both present their POV's and reasoning in the talkpage, trying to agree to later improve it in a rational manner.

And besides all that please don't use Huntington's view as an excuse to revert. He somehow choose to re-define the whole concept of civilization, presenting 'several religious blocs' as rival civilizations while the commony accepted concept of Western Europe was clearly ignored. Western Europe is not merely the catholic and protestant countries in Europe, it is more (includes Greece) and also less (does not include Poland, etc) (see point above). Flamarande 20:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande, the concept of Western Europe you mentioned might have been commonly accepted during the Cold War. I dare to say that it finished about 20 years ago. Regards, Montessquieu (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I take the following statement as an insult: "(rv (exlain or provide alternative to Huntington, do not delete; & Wikipedia is not a neo-Nazi / "Stalin liberated Europe" type of forum) Cheers)". That phrase clearly insinuates that 1st)I am a Neo-nazi or at least am defending such ideas inside of Wikipedia. 2nd)That I am a communist (more accuratly a Stalinist) or at least defending such ideas inside Wikipedia. On the whole it implies that I am not trying to truthfully improve this article and rather am attemptingt to 'twist' the article somehow; and that idea is ABSOLUTLY false. Flamarande 20:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A few quick points, Flamarande. Your guess is wrong: I am not a Finn. You are wrong, Viipuri is not part of Karelia. You are wrong, in that during WW2 Finland had no choice to pick sides, as Finland was first invaded by USSR, not the other way around. Last, but not least, your statements seem to insinuate that Stalin was a significantly more righteous and less murderous dictator than Hitler. Just like Holocaust denial, it is insulting, and it is of rather secondary importance whether such insulting views are promoted due to pro-totalitarian sympathies, chauvinism (to the point that the value of human life somehow varies depending on the murdering regime and the victim's ethnic origin) or downright ignorance. --Klamber 21:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Never said you were, only said that IF you were I could understand somewhat your POV. Finland certainly had a choice. Finland was attacked by Russian but both countries signed the Moscow Peace Treaty. More or less one year later Finland attacked in the Continuation War, allying itself with the Nazi Germany. Viipuri leads to the article Vyborg which states that it is located in the Karelian Isthmus. I am not going to answer your insinuations/insults FULLSTOP. Flamarande 00:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Soviet Union attacked Finland in the Continuation War. Finns had no choice but to be friends with the Germans. Finland never allied with the Nazis nor did give Jews to the Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MembThePenguin (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an example of Soviet "liberation". Montessquieu (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Isogloss concept

I think a safe and accyrate way to determine western from eastern europe is by using the isogloss theory and the countries that make part of the Centum group. The Centum countries thus the european countries that are inhabited by people speaking Greek, west Romance, Germanic or Celtic languages were always considered to consist the Western Europe with the rest of european countries such as Russia, Serbia, Croatia, Romania always formed eastern europe. The latest map that you demonstrate simply demonstrates this. If you redirect to Centum group you will see hoe this map always overlap with almost the exact boundaries of the west —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I don't know much about the language theories and facts. From what I do know in Western Europe you have mainly the Celtic, Greek, Romance (Latin), and Germanic languages. Eastern Europe has mainly Slavic languages. BUT this is NOT 100% acurate. Romanian is a Latin language and "belongs" without any doubt to Eastern Europe. Finnish (west) is related to Hungarian (east). Then we have the Basque language which aparently does not belong to the Indo-Germanic language family. Still, if you have a good book you might mention this, but be careful: no original research. Flamarande 20:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all thank you very much for your remarks. I will quote to you a phrase from the article of Wikipedia concerning the satem-centum isoglosses : Whether areal or dialectal, the centum/satem distinction was long considered to represent a division of Proto-Indo-European into western and eastern zones. (Solta, G. R. , Palatalisierung und Labialisierung, IF 70 (1965), 276–315)

About Finland do not forget that for centuries it was not concidered part of the west at all as it was under the immediate influnce of russia till at least the early 20th century.

Their inclusion in the west was done for purely political reasons after Finland left the russian realm of influence not 90 years ago.

As for Romanians i think that although speaking an eastern romance language nonethless their legacy as descedants of Dacians a european people closely related to ancient thracians and illyrians and modern albanians and the fact that they have developed their civilisation within the heart of eastern europe place them with no doubt to the eastern european group.

If you observe further the line that traditionally had been separating centum from satem groups since the dawn of their existence is the same line that separates today western from eastern romance languages , as i have already mentioned before -if you see my text.

So I think that the centum(with only western romance languages)-satem(including further eastern romance languages) division is the most accurate division of the west from the east and vice versa.

You are free to develop the linguistical aspect a bit further, and all serious impovements are welcomed (hey this is Wikipedia). But please don't base your improvements upon any Wikipedia article, use your own sources (i.e. books) and list the sources at the proper place. But don't get too carried away: fact is that while older notions have a certain influence over the concept of Western Europe it was mostly defined by the Iron Curtain and the Cold War. Flamarande 12:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC) PS It is easy to sign messages with four " ~ ".

Name for the archipelago near France in which Ireland and the UK are located

There is an archipelago. Such geographical features have always a name. AFAIK almost everywhere this particular archipelago is called the "British Isles". This name is not apreciated in the Republic of Ireland because they feel that this name implies that all the islands are British (obviously they aren't). I also can understand this reasoning (i.e. the feelings of the Irish). But nevertheless the name continues to be used. As it continues to be used, it is accurate. This article (and Wikipedia in general) uses accurate terms. If anyone is able to provide another name that is accurate and widely used I will be more than happy to improve the article (to replace the name). This is the same problem with the "The Sea of Japan". Flamarande 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not correct as the british do not use the term british isles neither and i have asked a multitude of people from places like germany, australia, canada and the USA and they all agree with me. I do not see what the problem is to leave it as Britain and Ireland as the term british isles is considered offensive to the people that have suffered to have their independence. It is not a republic if they are being constantly reminded they are british according to the minority that say british isles. So if you want to settle this in a civilised manner then leave it as Britain and Ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saoirsegodeohf (talk • contribs) 14:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You talked with Germans about this matter? Rest assured that they use "Britische Inseln" in the German language (my father is German). Try this: Go to the article British Isles and look at the articles in other languages. The overwhelming majority use it, simple as that. To be clear; what other languages use to name the archipelago near France has little relevance here. The English Wikipedia deals with the English language. But the English language also uses it. Its a simple fact. You are unable to provide a credible alternative for the name, aren't you? You have to realize that the name is just that: a name, nothing else. Don't get mad about it. Leave it be. Flamarande 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Heres an alternative then Irish Isles, why not write that? And i might as well change the name of Europe to greater germany because it is in the centre of europe and germany took over most of it and i can't think of a better alternative. Another thing, PartyPoker the international gaming website does not use the term british isles it uses the term UK and Ireland it obviously knows the craic and know how to treat people in a curtious and respectful way.

Irish Isles is your alternative? This name isn't used by the neither the majority, nor the academia (if it where this article would use it). And your reasoning of using "Greater Germany" in place of "Europe" is a red herring and a simply unwise argument. You are grasping at straws. Flamarande 15:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically the the usage of greater germany makes about as much sense as using british isles because as greater germany, or more appropriately the 3rd Reich,

is out of date by 60 years the term british isles is also outdated. I suppose you would still use the term wireless instead of radio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saoirsegodeohf (talk • contribs) 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because "Greater Germany" was never ever used to designate "Europe" by the majority of the English-speakers, or the English-speaking academia anytime at all. "British Isles" was and continues to be used till this day. Flamarande 15:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Saoirsegodeohf, wikipedia is not a soapbox or a forum - please see WP:TALK to see how to correctly use a talk-page. Also please sign your comments.
  Flamarande, while I think Saoirsegodeohf's behaviour is bad, they still have a point. If you are going to use the term "British Isles" you must (as regards WP:NPOV) state the objection of the Irish state to that term, as is done in British Isles article. If you are going to avoid using the term you should use something like "the islands of Britain and Ireland." BTW I don't actually know if Britain and Ireland constitute an archipeligo, The Hebrides would, but isn't there a distinction between two islands beside each other and a chain of islands - I might be completely wrong here but this is the first time I've heard Britain and Ireland called an archipeligo--Cailil ^talk 16:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are mistaken: Quoting from the article British Isles: "This article describes the archipelago in north-Western Europe. For those areas of the archipelago with constitutional links to the British monarchy, see British Islands." I'm not going to avoid of using that geographical name. However as you requested I will state the objection of the Irish state and ppl to that term. Flamarande 16:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough--Cailil ^talk 16:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the measures put in place are sufficient therefore i will continue to separate Ireland and Britain as France is separate from Germany. By the way i don;t think you should quote from other wikipedia pages because wikipedia is not an encyclopedia whoever wrote that these islands are an archipelago may be wrong as wikipedia has been wrong about things in the past.Saoirsegodeohf 17:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• What's wrong with just "Ireland and Britain"? I guess I don't understand what the argument is that says Ireland shouldn't be mentioned. Dlabtot 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read the article you will notice that Ireland is quite clearly mentioned. Flamarande 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm speaking in reference to the RfC question, um-kay? Dlabtot 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You could consider "British Isles (IONA)" as a compromise and explanation all in one go. (Just passing through from the RfC page) --Philip Baird Shearer 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Original Research from the beginning to the end in the introcution

This article starts off with a long list of sweeping generalisations. No attempt is made to source weasel terms like "In common perception", "commonly associated". In fact, the whole introduction sounds not a little bit like original research. It's claimed that Western Europe as defined in the article is different from Eastern Europe by "differences of culture, politics and economis". According to whom? It seems like the ideas of some editor with a very vague idea of Europe who doesn't even try to explain his ideas.
Culture Does anybody really want to claim that Greece is culturally closer to Norway and the UK than to Bulgaria and Serbia? There are many cultural boundaries (Religion, history, language groups etc.) in Europe, virtually none of which conforms to the division proposed here. Perhaps somebody would care to explain which cultural traits that unite this so called "Eastern" Europe on one side and "Western" Europe on the other?
Politics That would have been true twenty years ago but certainly not today. Both the so called "Eastern" and "Western" Europe are both home to some very well-functioning democraties and to some less well-functioning. Twenty years ago, this would have been a question between democraties and dictatorship but what political differences are there now?
Economics This is perhaps the funniest of them all and once again reveal a severe lack of insight on behalf of the author(s). Their proposed "Eastern" Europe is home both to the most state-controlled and the most liberal economies in Europe. Neither the proposed "Western" or "Eastern" Europe have any common economic system, far from it.
Then we get even more original research, claiming that "Western Europe" is "commonly associated" with liberal democracies. I doubt anyone would call Greece a very liberal democracy while Slovenia and Estonia well could be called so. And "Capitalism"?? Give me a break, most states in the so called Eastern Europe are more capitalistic than countries such as Sweden, Norway or Finland. And then we get the funny idea that "Western Europe" is associated with the "European Union". Funny, as the "western" countries of Norway, Iceland and Switzerland aren't in the union while most "Eastern" countries are. All in all, the whole introduction is just a long orgy of original research and no actual knowledge. The real article starts with the definition by the UN, a definition that is very different from the OR proposed in the introduction, and also much more accurate. Unless some very authorotative sources are provided instead of the present OR introduction, the whole introduction should be deleted. The articles on Northern Europe, Central Europe and Southern Europe conform both to each other and to the UN definitions. As far as I remembered Western Europe and Eastern Europe also used to conform to that untill the present introductions with all their original research and lack of knowledge were added. They should be removed swiftly for many reasons, not least the poor quality, the lack of conformity with other articles and especially the fact that it's all opinions and original research. JdeJ 14:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It seems to me that you want the (nearly) impossible. The main question is: "What precisly is Western Europe?" The true answer is: "It is only a geopolitical idea, which lingers inside the mind of many ppl. The main influence over this idea was and still continues to be the Cold War." Your answer and opinion IMHO seems to be: "Absolutly nothing. Western Europe and Eastern Europe are undistinguishable from each other. The only thing that is valid today is the UN definition. Everything else is to be ignored and to be ridiculed." I honestly can't agree with your view upon this matter.

You seem to have completly forgotten to read the main body of the article. By far the main influence (but not only) over this term (and over the twin idea of "Eastern Europe") was the Cold War. The Cold War lasted from 1945 until 1989. 44 years which had a huge impact upon everything. On one side was Western Europe with Democracy (politics) and Capitalism (economics). On the other side Eastern Europe with Socialist Republics (i.e. single-party dictatorships) and Socialism (State controled economies).

Your knowledge about Greek politics seems to be lacking to say the least. The Regime of the Colonels ended in 1974 and modern Greek democracy is quite secure and gives all modern liberties to say the least. I suggest you read the articles about Greece and Metapolitefsi in particular.

The big (and real) problem is that this "vision" of the separation was also merged/jopined with other older notions (and ideas) which aren't 100% true and accurate. Some of them are simply wrong, others aren't 100% accurate.

In the mind of many ppl Western Europe speaks Celtic, Latin, and Germanic family languages while in Eastern Europe the Slavic languages are spoken. This isn't 100% true at all, but the notion exists and perists and yes it influences the two terms.

How about religion? Most countries in WE are Catholics or Protestants while most countries in Eastern Europe are of the Christian Orthodox. Again this simple view isn't 100% acurate. Poland is mainly Catholic, while Greece which is considered the craddle of the "Democratic Western individualistic world" is Christian Orthodox.

And let us not deny another controversial influence upon these two concepts: the racial/cultural notion. On one side the Celts, Latins, Anglo-Saxons and Germanics VS the Slavs. Again not 100% accurate yet it has influence upon this matter.

Another influence is the European Union (and the EU was also influenced on its turn). Don't forget that the European Union was created during the Cold War and most of its trends, contents, and ideas reflect this. The initial countries were Western European countries.

To cut things short: All these notions (and some others) have all a certain degree of influence over the two terms. You probably don't agree with this. To avoid any kind of revert war I'm going to provide your requested sources. Flamarande 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I seriously advise you to read this: [1]. It is a discourse of Toomas Hendrik Ilves, then a minister of the Estonian goverment. I think if you read it carefully you will see that he presents the "commonly accepted vision of Eastern Europe" (and by contrast one can understand the "commonly accepted vision of Western Europe") and shows how many notions ppl have are many times mistaken; some completly ridiculous while others simply not quite acurate. But yet all these notions influence how all of us see Western and Eastern Europe.

Your user-page says that you read the "The Economist". If you still have it, please take the October 20th-26th 2007 edition and read carefully the "Baltic blues" article (page 92): "Some fear the region could be eastern Europe's Achilles heel." This refers to the Baltic states. I read the Economist too (besides some other newspapers, books, etc) and I meant this kind of use: in economic newspapers (media in general) by "comon use and perception".

On the other hand I have nothing against serious improvements of the article in general and of the entry-section in particular. I can only suggest that you use the Talk-page before you acuse someone of Original Research and weasel words. And that you improve the entry into something before you start to scream: OR, OR, Weasel words, Weasel words, KILL, KILL, BURN, BURN. Take no prisoners! That atitude is not very helpful to say the least. Debate (defending your reservations) instead of accusing (making fun of someones knowledge upon the matter, knowledge which might be wrong or not). Please do not make fun of another user. Flamarande 16:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC) In case you haven't noticed I tend to be quite honest and quite sarcastic.

A Summary of Some of the Problems

Unfortunately, some editors to this article seem to be unaware of the difference between verifiable fact and personal opinions. The aim of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia and part of that aim is to meet some common standards. The version of this article that some editors want to use fail to meet a considerable number of these standards. Let me mention a few of the problems

• Countries constituting Western Europe. The article categorically list a number of countries that belong to Western Europe. According to whom? That list is original research, it is the opinion of some individuals and not sourced. People may agree or disagree with the definition used by the UN, but that is an actual source, not just what you or I might think.
• Personal opinions and claims. The introduction to the article claims that Western Europe is associated "with liberal democracy, capitalism, and also with the European Union." Again, according to whom. You cannot just invent your own definitions of Western Europe and put it in an article.
• Contradicting itself. Many of the factors in the list above aren't just personal opinions, they are contradicting themselves. Not all of the countries in the list of countries (also original reserarch) belong to the European Union while 11 countries not on the list do. As for liberal democracy, it is fairly recent in countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece, just as it is in many other European countries not on the list, so again a definition contradicting itself.
• POV. This is perhaps the most severe problem. The editors who are pushing this version seem to refuse the idea that others might disagree with them. It should be fairly obvious to any observer that there are many conflicting views on which countries are making up Western Europe. The only sourced one in the article is the one based on the UN. Still, these editors push forward their own home-brewed definition, entirely without any sources, as the true version of Western Europe.
  

Now, it would make much more sense to start off with the UN definition, as that version is building on a source. The section on the Cold War is already the longest in the article even without the OR-tainted introduction. That introduction is better left out as it's not encyclopedic, is not citing any sources, is self-contradictory and, in short, is nothing but the personal opinions of some Wikipedia editors. JdeJ 15:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

origin of the concept of "Central Europe"

The raticle currently states that the concept of central europe stems from a 1915 book by Friedrich Naumann. I don't know whether this is true for the English language, but in Germany, the concept of Mitteleuropa was already around long before WWI: encyclopedia entry from 1891. I think the term "central powers" also precedes that Friedrich Naumann book a bit, so I fail to see an obvious connection. Yaan (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good resource to be added, although Mitteleuropa is often distinguished from Central Europe, as it also conveyed some political plan and is a historical term in this respect. Pundit|utter 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In Germany these two terms are not different at all, and the article makes it seem as if the term Central Europe is an invention of Friedrich Naumann, when in fact Naumann was just using a word that was in widespread use. Yaan (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in English Mitteleuropa works as one particular historical idea. But I'm not saying you should not add this resource, it seems interesting, valuable and on the topic. Pundit|utter 00:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'll just place a "dubious" tag. Yaan (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitteleuropa is a German concept assuming the creation of buffer states in Central Europe dominated by Germany. Neumann opted for germinisation of the region, making Crimea a German colony and colonisation of the Baltic states. German political elites accepted the idea of Mitteleuropa during the World War I when deciding on their plans of a new European order after the eventual success of the Central Powers. Mitteleuropa was to consist of several countries under political, economic and military control of the Reich. Germany and Austria-Hungary's claims to the lands of "Mitteleuropa" in World War I and success in attaining them in 1918, would lay the foundation of the concept of Lebensraum (living space) by the Nazi regime years later.

Central Europe refers to history and culture of the region. It distinguishes from the West mainly in its conservatism (and rather eastern economic model), and from the East in its Western culture.

The concept of Mitteleuropa is very controversial and doesn't refer to Central Europe. Please, consider revising the article: the peoples and countries of Central Europe refuse being regarded as Eastern European because of CULTURAL difference. Those peoples are of Western culture, with Western Christian model, Latin alphabet and all the features of Western civilisation (see Western world) - it is then very weird to be described as Eastern Europe which belongs to the Eastern world. Montessquieu (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Mitteleuropa is just the German word for Central Europe. It is not a political concept per se, even if the term was hijacked by different groups during WWI. I also think you might be confusing Franz Naumann and August Thyssen, but that's just a guess, I have not read Naumann's book Yaan (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In other languages, there is a difference: Central Europe (Europe Centrale in French, Europa Środkowa in Polish, Europa Central in Spanish, Europa centrale in Italian) is a historiacal-cultural concept, while Mitteleuropa (written originally in German) refers to Naumann's theory (Mitteleuropa, 1915). I am not saying that the concept does not have German origin because it has. But it's not Naumann's book that introduced it. It was used by Friedrich List (1789-1846), but in fact the term was born at the beginning of the 20th century and it was strictly connected to economic growth in Germany and German plans of domination of the territories beyond the eastern border. There was a book about Central Europe of that time written by J. Partsch (Mitteleuropa. Die Länder und Völker…, Gotha 1904). On 21 January 1904 Central European Economic Association (Mitteleuropäischer Wirtschaftsverein) was established in Berlin - this is how the connection between the term "Central Europe" and German plans of political, economic and cultural domination was born. THEN Naumann's book appeared (1915) and became a bible of the concept of Central Europe / Mitteleuropa as a territory of German hegemony. It was not realised due to the results of the WW I, and ceased to exist in 1918. In 1918-1939, "Central Europe" did not mean a territory of possible German domination, but rather endeavours of re-born states (such as Poland, Czechoslovakia or Hungary) to integrate and solve common political, economic and ethnic problems. This integration was also regarded as a way to face German and Soviet pressures. These endeavours were not successful (see the Little Entente or Międzymorze). Central Europe wasn't limited to German cultural (etc.) area any more, and the term Mitteleuropa lost its meaning (before it was used in many languages in its German version - what was natural as it was closely connected to Germany as the centre of the concept). That time the debate has started to decide what "Central Europe" (not Mitteleuropa) really is (it was initiated during the Fifth Congress International des Sciences Historiques in Brussels, 1923). After the WW II, the discussion about Central Europe was rather forbidden in the Central European communist states as every analysis confirmed its distinction from Eastern Europe (-> dominated by USSR), and communist authorities were making their best to integrate the Central European territories under the communism with USSR and Eastern culture. The research was conducted mainly by emigrants from these countries (Czechs and Hungarians speaking about Central Europe and Poles speaking about Central and Eastern Europe <Central Europe+Ukraine+Belarus, former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth> - a contested concept). That's why we have a problem today that Germany and Austria are excluded from the concept of Central Europe by some theoreticians (what is not true in my opinion, at least from the cultural point of view). Regards, Montessquieu (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No response for two months, I changed the content of the article. Montessquieu (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

UN v. CIA Factbook Map ?

The introductory map (UN Statistic Division) suggests that it's an official UN's division of Europe's regions. According to the introduction to the "Standard country or area codes and geographical regions for statistical use" section, "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". What is more, the UN do not define Eastern Europe in the presented way - compare the map of Central and Eastern Europe (UN Cartographic Division) or UNESCO official information sources on education.

Central Europe does exist in the UN system, the "traditional" division of Europe into four regions is just for statistical use - it was rational at the moment of its creation as "Eastern Europe" as presented on the map was one economic bloc at that time. I propose to a) remove the UN map b) change the map order - put CIA World Factbook map first and clearly indicate that the UN map is just for statistical use and does not imply any assumption regarding political/other affiliation of countries by the UN. Regards, Montessquieu (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the same for CIA factbook, it is just an arbitrary grouping among many others. Why not including the classification made by the international comminty for miss universe? or others too? CIA is not the most objective grouping, since it is linked with US geopolitical point of views, at least the UN one is more international. 82.224.59.166 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

present times

I would like to suggest placing present times section in the beginning of the article. many readers don't want to go through all the historical nuances, and would benefit from getting a contemporary definition in the first place. Objections? Pundit|utter 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The big problem is that there are several contemporary definitions. The CIA, the UNO, etc all of them use their own definitions and for diffrent reasons to boot. Then we have several criteria like culture, language, religion, alphabet, history, etc which largely don't agree with each other. Which one are you going to choose? Just brace yourself for rules-lawyers and "national defenders with inferiorty problems" which will not agree with you. Flamarande (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A divided Europe

This section repeats the "Cold War" section with some idiotic modifications. Eastern Europe is defined as the countries east from the Iron Curtain while Western Europe is defined as the rest ("Most joined NATO and/or the European Community or its rival, the European Free Trade Association"). At first, this "divided Europe" ceased to exist about 20 years ago with the fall of the Communism. The criteria used in the "Western Europe" section apply to some countries classified as Eastern Europe (EU & NATO). Finally, some "Western" countries have little in common with the West (e.g. Greece is culturally Eastern, while the Czech Republic - Western). What's more, Central Europe has to be taken into account. And some sources would be useful... Montessquieu (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Modifications

• I merged two sections: the Cold War and A divided Europe - they are both about the Cold War period.
• As to the Western European countries enlisted there, I removed the words "and is" (previous version: Western Europe was and is composed of:) to specify that those countries are not necessarily regarded as Western European today (why? Austria, Switzerland, Germany: Central Europe, Sweden, Finland: Northern Europe, Greece: South-Eastern Europe, since the fall of the communism almost 20 years ago a lot of things changed)
• I removed this fragment: and denouncing the notion of "Easternity" (about the Central European people) - they are not denouncing the notion, this designation is simply foreign for them as they are in the Western cultural sphere since the 10th century. However, Eastern European countries do exist and there's nothing pejorative in this expression, it just has to be properly used
• I removed this sentence: Though the majority in the West see a difference between their cultures and the former Eastern Bloc nations. There is nothing like "Western cultures" and the "former Eastern block culture". Many previously communist states belong to the Western culture (see Central Europe).
• Definition by the United Nations - United Nations have never defined Western Europe. Those are only statistical regions used by the Statistics Division, determined during the Cold War where the whole Eastern Block was treated as one economic area (what was true at that time). Other UN agencies use different regional specification (for example UN Programme on HIV, UNHCR (Refugee Agency), ILO (Labour Organization), UNICEF). So this is only definition used by the United Nations Statistics Division
• There is no definition of Western Europe by the Western European Union. Member states of an international organisation - it's not the same with the definition of the region.

Montessquieu (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"e.g. Greece is culturally Eastern, while the Czech Republic - Western."

I can assure you technically speaking Greece, Italy and Spain are their own subgroup unlike Northern Europeans while Czech Republic is closer to the baltic and former yugoslavian states. The whole "culturally" thing doesnt make any sense85.73.93.244 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"while Czech Republic is closer to the baltic and former yugoslavian states" I hope you're joking. Nither have we (I'm from the Czech republic) ever formed a country with the yugoslavians or baltics, nor are we in any way related (based on research, over 40% of our genes are of the german branch - makes sense - we formed a country with them (or the austrians) for almost 300 years...).

• Greece with Italy and Spain?? I don't think so.. Italy and Spain = Latin and Catholic.. Greece = Greek and Orthodox.. + Greek history and culture is Western Asian - not Western European.. and never forget that Christianity comes from Western Asia. Izzedine (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Population

The total population for (what's commonly accepted as) Western Europe would be nice to have, wouldn't it? Adding together the populations of the separate countries doesn't violate WP:ORIG. 84.202.252.37 (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Population of Western Europe table

The table appears to be missing Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City—according to the National Geographic Society. Hayden120 (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes that's correct. Izzedine (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the creator used a program to create the table; it's extremely tedious to add them manually and update all the fields. Hayden120 (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I know.. I was going to add them, but all the calculating would take ages (is the table essential?). Izzedine (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)