Talk:Eurocentrism

message: While Europe's contribution to modernity should be "openly acknowledged" we should also openly acknowledge the contribution of other cultures (notably Persian,  Asian and African) that led to Europe's renaissance in the first place. to omit that history of how Europe came out of the Dark Age is to commit Eurocentrism. 68.155.103.121 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no single author, but the word "purported" is there because some of these examples are disputed or disputable. No one is saying that important intellectual and technological innovations did not get made outside of Europe, but modernity as we understand it is overwhelmingly a European event that is then, as it were, "exported" or adopted. Paul B 08:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Modernity as we understand it was built during the colonial age, in which Europe prospered on massive revenues, cultural exchange, and other contributions generated from its colonial territories across the world. So it's completely off the mark to state that modernity is an overwhelmingly European event. Selerian (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: if modernity was built during European hegemony, I fail to see how you could argue it was not an "overwhelmingly European event". Obviously, Europe ripped off the New World to build its modernity. There are clearly ethical issues involved in that, making modernity questionable in terms of morals etc. But that doesn't make it any less European, for better or worse. If I steal your money and use it to fly to Mars, the credit for flying to Mars will still go to me, not you, even if I am guilty of theft. --dab (𒁳) 09:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your analogy is flawed. Europe did not take the money from the rest of the world to fly to Mars. Rather, Europe and the rest of the world flew to Mars together. Selerian (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: purported eurocentrism

message: Why is judeocentrism linked from here? Is there a relationship between the two? If so, can someone describe it, please? If not, I'll remove the link. Martin
I remember clearly that there used to be a page called Americocentrism. If I'm not mistaken, it was then turned into a redirect. Now it seems to have gone completely. Should this fact be seen as Americocentrism here at Wikipedia? 131.130.181.71 13:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: judeocentrism

message: Deleted text: (was 2nd paragraph)
:Being subject to eurocentrist practices may lead to the perception that Western concepts are deemed universal, or superior, or at least fundamentally different from those in other cultures or civilizations.
How can a concept be considered universal if while at the same time fundamentally different? This doesn't make sense.
Is this a veiled reference to the concept which justifies or predicts the dominance of Western Civilivation as a consequence of the "uniquely Western" quest to improve itself as a whole? Toynbee (?) or other historians exalt the ancient Greeks as seeking "the good" in general terms. That is, they looked not only inward (to themeselves) but outward (to other cultures) for aspects with which they might better themselves.
Is this the aspect the sentence above deems fundamentally different: the West's anti-ethnocentric tendency to pick and choose the best elements of other civilizations?
Or is the sentence echoing the historian's exaltation of the "superiority" of Western culture as a consequence of its relentless drive to become better? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC
I think the sentence in implying that westerners tend to force their beliefs down the throats of other countries, which is undeniable. Also, whites (westerners) seek to claim universal ideas as their own. Like the fact that you just said 'Greeks seek "the good" in general terms.', which makes them unique. And that's a load of bullshit given that other cultures constantly bettered themselves too and this idea is not uniquely Western at all. Also, western culture tends to have most of its origin from other cultures (Etruscan art, Sumerian writing), which is something eurocentrists try to mask.01000100 14:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: self-contradictory paragraph

message: Interestingly enough, Afrocentricism, although nowhere near as damaging to the world's society as Eurocentricism has been, has been posted with more criticism than this article. I post valid critical response into the article and ALL of it is deleted.
So it seems that criticism of Afrocentricism is permitted where it interferes with sound objective educational development, but criticism of Eurocentricism is avoided even though it has interfered with life libertiy and self determination, caused slavery, oligarchies, and racial division. 
Another more offensive tradition in Eurocentric discourse and scholarship is for Eurocentric minded scholars to take a "European by default" approach to discussing the history of any mixed culture or ancient civilization that could possibly have had contact with European oriented peoples. By assuming that contact was made in antiquity, the Eurocentric scholar will assert that the culture or civilization was by default "European" or "Caucasoid" in antiquity, and that these characteristics were the foundations that caused civilizations like Egypt, Ethiopia, Israel, and many East Indian civilizations to flourish in history. Usually the tradition will assert a condition in stating that de-empathizes or minimizes the non-European influence by using words like "although" and "however" after facts had shown that subject matter in question is not European in nature. This conditioning is done to harmonize the psychological need of the Eurocentric minded to lay claim to everything meaningful in history. Most notably is the need to lay claim to the Biblical and ancient Egyptian histories that are in fact not Eurocentric histories.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.254.174.148 (Talk)  (talk • contribs) .
I don't know why your additions were deleted but since you are anonymous, no one els is going to object......--AssegaiAli 11:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No they are not responsible at all and that is the point. Your Eurocentric teachings believe that they are. The countless distortions by Eurocentrics and the harm caused is nowhere near Afrocentrism. Eurocentrism only justification was to cause harm and suppress history 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:B0C5:2131:7EEF:380A (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Maya were doing fine that's rather strange, since Mayan civilisation was extinct. The Aztecs were doing fine systematically despoiling and murdering their neighbours. In fact modern mathematics and astronomy are almost wholly European developments. No one denies that some of the basic ideas and technologies had developed elsewhere. So what? No one claims that Europeans invented everything. No one ever has. As for "Europe's former colonies" some are douing great and some aren't. Has it occurred to you that America and India are both former colonies? Paul B (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Maya weren't "extinct", they were still around at the conquest. Their collapse after the classic period applied to a specific geographic region. The last maya city didn't fall until over 100 years after the Aztecs, and their descendants are still alive today. I think you're presenting a rather overly-simplistic view of things that could be countered by a more comprehensive explanation of the region's history. This book does a really good job of explaining what the New World was like before Europeans arrived. As for India and the US, the extreme poverty that exists in India today was not generally present before Europeans arrived; their economy was forcefully reworked to primarily export raw materials to England (Indians were forbidden by law to manufacture their own textiles).  The Native Americans that used to live in the US are almost completely gone except for a few reservations. Colonialism has not been 'good' for these people. I'm not arguing that Europeans stole most of the technologies that they used. Clearly that isn't true. I was specifically responding to the claim that Eurocentrism is "justified". By definition, eurocentrism ignores the achievements of other cultures and presents european military expansion towards the rest of the world in an apologetic light. Now regardless of your position (or mine for that matter), arguing against the existence of a criticism section in an article because it's subject matter is "justified" is just plain silly. This is something that is heavily criticized in real life, and the article should explain that. Snickeringshadow (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Bias 

message: For such an important concept, this is a very poor quality article which barely addresses the important issues. It also contains a lot of very garbled stuff (some of it added by the indignant anonymous contributor above). It's difficult to know what to make of paragraph like this:
::For example, the very definition of a continent was expanded to separate the Eurasian continent into two parts, Europe and Asia as to place Europe itself into more prominence. In addition cartesian maps have been designed throughout history to center the northwestern part of Europe (most notably Great Britain) in the map.
What is a "cartesian map": one designed by Descartes? When was the "definition of a continent" expanded to divide up Eurasia to promote Europe? The Europe/Asia distinction dates back to the ancient world, before the extent of these landmasses were known and before "Eurocentrism" was a meaningful concept or "Eurasia" known to exist. So this is wholly false, historically. Anyway, the argument makes no sense. In itself, dividing the landmass no more promotes Europe than Asia. As for world maps, they were first created by Europeans, so naturally expanded to the left and right from Europe, as more of the world became known. As a historical process this is pretty much inevitable, and conforms to the way known non-European maps developed with the map-making country in the centre. But it so happens it's virtually impossible to divide up the world any other way without chopping through a large landmass. Try it with a globe. Paul B 14:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Europe/Asia distinction does date back to the ancient world, but really all that proves is that Eurocentrism as well has a long history. In itself, dividing the landmass no more promotes Europe than Asia; but it does separate the two, which allows for further argumentation to the benefit of Europe's exclusivity. Finally, world maps were not first created by Europeans, check here - Early world maps. Selerian (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: poor stuff

message: interesting. the data needs to be verified though. For instance, many mathematical ideas stated (algebra, negative #s etc) came from india to middle east. I would like to remove the especially in especially Islamic mathematics from the main page. Any objections, please let me know. The scientific discoveries parah are equally applicable to India, china etc - to make this page better, I'd suggest we don't make generic statements but possibly make a short list of (verified) claims to backup the statement. --Pranathi 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add the term 'Orientalism' to the See also section, simply because the concept represents a line of thinking about biased scholarly research in a similar vein to the way Eurocentric assessments of culture and ideas operate. I would also like to add the term 'Eurocentrism' to the last line of the Orientalism article, adding it alongside the term Occidentalism, which in the context of the article has a similar definition of terms comparable to Eurocentrism. Any objections please msg me, or discuss. Peace! User talk:Drakonicon Drakonicon 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also consider adding Postmodernism because all these cultural bias awareness 'isms' are emergent properties of the general umbrella term 'Postmodernism'. One essay that might open up this idea is The Postmodern Condition by Jean-Francois Lyotard. Anyway, I added it because I believe Eurocentrism is akin to the concept of cultural relativism. In the Postmodernism article, Eurocentrism can be seen in terms of 'cultural relativism'. User talk:Drakonicon Drakonicon 20:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A source that might be worth thinking...

message: It's not an example of Eurocentrism so much as an example of artistic license, and the way that historical/legendary/mythical subjects are portrayed in the arts based on when and where the painting is painted, the statue made, etc. East Asian Buddhists have Asian-looking  Buddha (He was Indian). Roman soldiers in paintings of Christ on the cross made during the Renaissance often wear Renaissance-period armour. Etc. --Edward Wakelin 01:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "European Jesus" thing

message: Erasing and ignoring of history.  Isn't the trade mark of eurocentrism is to basically deny anyone and everyones history.  If it couldn't be denied then it was destroyed or claimed white.  You can any native american or black and they will say that at least.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmac800  (talk • contribs) .
:I completely agree. I hear "America doesn't have as much history as Europe" coming from a lot of Europeans. I'm Cherokee and living in former the territory of the former Powhatan Empire. An Empire for crying out loud. We have our own written history dating back hundreds of years prior to the arrival of Europeans. But because we're not European, our history doesn't count. Only Europeans can even have civilization, everyone else is savage. 24.254.163.104 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does this ignore 

message: An anonymous editor has been deleting the latter part of this sentence "Cartesian maps have been designed throughout known history to center the northwestern part of Europe (most notably Great Britain) in the map. (however this model does ensure that land regions are concentrated in the centre without Eurasia being split in two)." The point of this latter part is to point out that there are reasons other than "Eurocentrism" for dividing the map at the Bering strait, which puts western Europe very roughly in the middle. There are many variations, depending on the projection of course. London quite often placed to the left of centre. Yes, there are maps in which London is used as the exact central point, but that's not relevant to the statement being made here, which is simply that the Breing strait is the most obvious place to split a map irrespective of any ideas about the relative status of different regions. Indeed the London-centric maps typically slice through a bit of Russia. I don't know what is meant by the statement that "London cuts off the Iberian Peninsula". Paul B 23:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: deletion

message: I have often heard proponents of the peters projection claim that the traditional mercator projection is culturally biased in favour of the northern hemisphere, by making such landmasses disproportionately larger than southern hemisphere landmasses. Technically this is a northern-hemisphere-centric bias, not specifically European, but it feels relevant to include mention of this in the section dealing with Eurocentric maps, due to its Eurocentric roots. It feels more relevant to me than a discussion on where the latitudes stand, especially the way the article now reads, where it essentially argues that this is not so much Eurocentrism as common sense. I'd welcome any comments- I may simply be biased by living in post colonial southern hemisphere.WotherspoonSmith 12:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a bit about the projections, having read up about them in the linked articles.WotherspoonSmith 12:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read the additions, but it should be noted that the distortion on the Marcator's projection isn't because he wanted to make it seem like Europe is more awesome and larger than it is, with a strange bias in favor of Greenland, but rather that it made a better tool for navigation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.78.120.156 (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  mercators projection? 

message: I have rewritten the opening paragraph, to bring the definition in line with dictionary definitions, wiktionary definitions, and the wikipedia definition of ethnocentrism. Sorry if this throws some of the article off balance, or messes with others' work too much, but it needed to be done.  
I am also removing weasel words- there are many, suggesting a lot of supposition and assumptions. Let me know if i delete anything precious in my use of wp:bold to make a general tidy up over the next few weeks   WotherspoonSmith 13:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of definition, tidying up, removal of weasel words 

message: The following, lifted directly from the sinocentric page, appears relevant. unfortunately, i can't find anything to balance this- are there similar significant encounters between Eurcentrism and afrocentricm, or equivalents from the americas or australia?
Europe
The best-known official encounter between Sinocentrism and the self-assertion of 'Europeans' was the celebrated Macartney Embassy of 1792-93, which sought to establish a permanent British presence in Peking and open up trade relations. The rebuff of the Chinese Emperor to the British overtures and the British refusal to kowtow to the Emperor of China has passed into legend. In response to the British request to recognise Macartney as ambassador, the Emperor wrote:
The Celestial Empire, ruling all within the four seas, simply concentrates on carrying out the affairs of Government properly...We have never valued ingenious articles, nor do we have the slightest need of your country's manufactures, therefore O King, as regards to your request to send someone to remain at the capital, which it is not in harmony with the regulations of the Celestial Empire - we also feel very much that it is of no advantage to your country.
It was to be more than half a century before the Europe gained the upper hand thanks to their victory in the Opium War. Led by the British, one Western power after another imposed "unequal treaties" on China, including provisions of extraterritoriality that excluded Europeans from the application of local laws.
WotherspoonSmith 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new section? 

message: Europe was not more advanced than the rest of the world prior to 1492. That is laughable. The Ottoman Empire (which, unlike the Abbasid Caliphate, was completely uncultured) was still expanding westward into Europe all the way into the 17th century, and Europeans still had to ask for permission from the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire if they wanted to pass into the Ottoman Empire. The Europeans were unable to mount a legitimate stop against the Ottomans until 1683 (~200 years after the "European Miracle"). China had the most advanced navy in the world in 1492. Europe is the closest Old World region to the New World (the pacific is twice as wide). The Chinese navy had navigated all the way to North Africa before; the reason they didn't find the New World is because they never attempted such a route, not because they couldn't. Further, the Europeans had no choice but to find naval passages to South Asia because the Ottomans were an impediment to land-based trade. It's called "cultural evolution." The Europeans couldn't trade easily by land, so they needed to go by sea. How in the hell can someone legitimately say Europe was more advanced than China, India and the Middle East by the 15th century? That's a joke. The scientific revolution and, more importantly, the industrial revolution are what pushed Europe ahead. I think the article itself is full of both eurocentric and eurobashing biases. It just depends where you look. I think we ought to get this nonsense out about how Europe was more advanced in the 1400s though. Just because the Spanish pushed out the Ummayads doesn't mean they were a powerhouse yet. The Mongols, cultural arrogance, and imperial hubris were what led to the decline of the Islamic World's hegemony, not European genius.
FYI, the divisions between Europe and Asia have never been quite as clear cut as we like to think. There isn't a clear cut answer as to whether or not Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia ought to be considered part of Europe or Asia. That makes additional clashes over the fact that Armenia and Azerbaijan are historically parts of Iran. Persian influence can be seen as far north as southern Russia (Islamic/Mongol influence in general can be seen all across Russia), and Greek influence can be see all the way into Syria. The ancient Greeks did not think in terms of East or West, nor did they share any kinship with other Europeans, even if they referred to their own land as Europa. Asia is the Greek word for Assyria. It never was used to refer to China, India, etc. The Greeks didn't consider Egypt to be a part of Libya/Africa or Persia/Assyria either. Divisions between East and West did not start to become noticable until the the rise of Christianity, and later, Islam. Even so, The Romans/Byzantines considered the Parthians/Sassanids to be their equals in terms of cultural refinement moreso than they considered Germans, Slavs, etc. The entire Roman navy was modelled after Carthage (Eastern civilization) and their cavalry was modelled after the Iranian Empires (Eastern civilization). These things are not quite as clear cut from antiquity as we make them now. The Greeks to this day do not practice Western Christianity, do they? Their religious practices are in fact more akin to Middle Eastern Christianity (practiced by Armenians, Assyrians, Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians, etc.) than it is to most of Europe. I think we should make it more clear that these divisions, particularly when it comes to the Middle East, are primarily political. It is very common for Western civilization courses to study the Middle East before they study Greece. Generally, it isn't until after Islam that the Middle East starts to become an Other. After all, the entire Levant and North Africa were Christian and a part of the Byzantine Empire prior to Arab expansion. -68.43.58.42 00:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the point of this is what? Paul B 09:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of Western Civilisation and much of the basis of literature, art and philosophy comes from the scripts captured during the conquest of Muslim Spain, and translated by Jewish polyglots. Selerian (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The European Miracle 

message: most of the examples are completely unsourced. The cartographical stuff is silly, because it is based on mere convention, which is "Eurocentric" for historical resaons. You might as well call the Common Era Christocentric, or the Greenwich Meridian "Anglocentric". There is no reason we use 1 CE as our calendar era, or   Greenwich as the zero meridian other than established convention. Any switch to another system would cost billions and end up just as arbitrary. 
The historical examples are highly dubious. It is an allegation that Babylonian, Chinese, Indian and Islamic contributions are under-represented in "Western accounts of history". This allegation is typically made on political blogs by people who have no idea of the topic. In my experience, histories of mathematics to give due credit to non-European mathematicians. The problem is that pre-medieval mathematics is "proto-mathematics" at best, and the history of mathematics only really begins in about the 10th century in the Islamic world. It then remains at a very low level until the 17th century, and anything deserving the name of advanced mathematics does only happen to emerge in 17th to 18th century Europe. Stating that fact has nothing at all to do with Eurocentrism. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Al Khwarizmi lifted 90% of his ideas from much older Hindu and Greek scholars. His greatest accomplishment was the extremely prolific dissemination of his work, hence why the math forms he discussed have been referred to by the title he gave them. The situation is similar to the misnomer of referring to the Brahmin numeral system of India as the "Arabic" numeral system simply because Al Khwarizmi (who was a Persian) introduced it to the Muslim ,and later, Christian worlds. Kline is accurate; Islamic art, architecture, literature, and science have unique and very impressive accomplishments in their histories, but Algebra & the numeral system are not among them. 67.173.226.77 (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: Why? It seems ok to me. -Perry
Because it is clearly racist, and more politically and socially than factually motivated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.190.184 (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The neutrality of this article is disputed.

message: Look at the contributions of the user above and ir perspective will be immediately clear. This is one in the class of articles where Wikipedia policy fails massively, Eurocentrism is about a POV and so it both provokes reactions and stimulates the NPOV  scare, in this case especially inappropriately. The fascinating thing is that in Europe itself, it is entirely possible that the next stage of European dominance¹ could be in preparation, i.e. the one in which the European peoples self-consciously recognize the objective possibilities of their historical role on this world and themselves transcend eurocentrism. Obviously this could only happen there and the retrograde reaction(s) one observes here are what is to be expected in other parts of the planet where people of European descent are in various states of dominance. 
¹Or rather a co-dominance of the ancient centers of human society, ending the period in which marchland states predominate.
Lycurgus (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, wrt to the longitude that bisects Europe being the midline of the mercator projection there is another rationale for this: roughly that same longitude passes thru the place in East Africa from which homonids evolved. Lycurgus (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The End of Eurocentrism?/Failure of NPOV 

message: Makes no mention of the Jim Crow laws and the like. Zazaban (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly becuase they're not about Eurocentrism, but racism. Paul B (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurocentrism in America 

message: I see many claims along the lines of "europe believed this.. europe believed that..." but there are no facts to back them up and europe is an extremely ambiguous term.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.78.220 (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs more "citation needed"

message: I can clearly recall being taught in high school that Eurasia is actually 2 tectonic plates(One being Europe, another Asia) colliding at Ural mountains, however i can't seem to find any images showing that. Help, anyone? -70.74.23.33 (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cartography

message: I think it is fair to say that the world stopped being Eurocentric in May 1945 when World War II in Europe came to its bitter end. Granted, the continent itself played a key role as a potential battleground in the Cold War era between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, but the final dissolution of legitimate European colonialism was largely determined by the high costs of the Second World War. FitzColinGerald (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The End of Eurocentrism

message: Says who? The languages of Europe just held the representation their native/second language speakers give them. 
"out of eight languages generally considered "world languages", five are of European origin" 
so what? This is a fact, how would this make them "over-represented"? --89.97.35.70 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree. In fact of the three world languages which aren't UN official languages, to are European. And it just follows logically that Nobel prizes are typically awarded to writers in the most widely spoken languages. If Italian were an official UN language that might be an example of Eurocentrism, but it isn't. I'm going to delete the entire section. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: There was, and is, a school of thought that says that the Mercator projection is Eurocentric because it exaggerates the size of Europe at the expense of Africa. I'm not saying that this is right, but it should be commented upon. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to believe that Mercator had any interest in Africa. As usual, this is modern American racial politics projected back to a time in which the relative sizes of Africa and Europe were not an issue. The further land gets from the equator the more its size is exaggerated by Mercator, but no one accuses him of being Greenlandocentric. In fact his map was designed for use in navigation. That was its purpose, one that it still effectively serves. Size as such was of no importance. Usefulness in plotting distance was. This is one of the problems with this article. People like to add "examples" of Eurocentrism, with little regard to context, and so it tends to grow into a chaotic list of "grievances". Paul B (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

text: We appear to have crossed the line between discussing the article and discussing the subject matter. Eurocentrism is a debate. The cartography issue is part of that debate, so we need to talk about it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  languages of Europe are over-represented among the current world languages 

message: Two things need to change.
1.  It should give an impassive description of what is meant by Eurocentism, missing out such debatable things like "viewing the world from a European perspective, with an implied belief, either consciously or subconsciously, in the preeminence of European culture" or "The term Eurocentrism implies criticism of the concerns and values at the expense of non-Europeans".  The implications of viewing the world from a European perspective should be saved for the main article.
2. Should state that there has been a significant decline in the practice of "Eurocentrism" in Europe since the second world war.
It could be a good article but just now it seems to be the ramblings of someone who hates Europe to the point of obsession.  Many of the complaints in the discussion page such as those claiming Europeans still ignore other cultures histories are outdated and unfounded and it's fairly safe to say these people have never been to Europe.  No-body denies Europes often cruel and evil past, but there were many good things that came out of it's past, such as the language we are all using to communicate with each other now.86.171.240.101 (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening re-write 

message: The notion of primitive cultures has nothing to do with Eurocentrism in particular -- as the article points out correctly, colonialist Europe did not consider all non-European cultures "primitive", far from it, it had an almost supernatural awe of the "high cultures" of Asia. 
The disregard for decentralized tribal cultures is not particular to Europe at all, and was obviuosly shared by all "high cultures", including Muslim and Chinese, as is evident e.g. in the Arab slave trade. 
I would rather suggest that colonialist Europe is unique among developed cultures in creating the notion of the noble savage.
While the notion of "primitivity" certainly existed (and in certain senses still exists), I argue that it has little or nothing to do with the article topic. --dab (𒁳) 15:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "primitive cultures"

message: I have just noticed a HACK job with this article, I think before anyone deletes large tracts of text they should use the talk page before doing so. The article is bad, and made worse when we just go ahead on our own agenda and chop out huge sections and relvant quotes. I rememeber adding Alison Baile and I am sure other people have contributed also. I am also not to sure about some of the info being added, esp as it related to Afrocentrism, as someone pretty familiar with Asante and Afrocentrism it does not add up?--Inayity (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I been on Wiki a while now and I would suggest that you re-read Wiki policy (in addition to WP:AGF again and worry about editing this article (and not this editor) with RS sources. Policy nowhere suggest deleting entire sections over "minor" objections--never worked like that. I have already seen your edit history and it is a deeply worrying attitude to African history. --Inayity (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Before making drastic changes..

message: If anyone is interested in synthesizing this essay by Wallerstein into the article... that'd be cool
http://www.iwallerstein.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/NLREURAV.PDF
Dudanotak (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallerstein/eurocentrism 

message: A discussion thread about the reliability and notability of this author and his pages is taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owen 'Alik Shahadah 

message: I am quite astonished that this article makes no mention of Christendom and its role. Everything comes from that, inclusive of the command to "Go and teach all nations", whether or not providing cover for baser motives. This central role of Christendom is traced in such classics as C. Dawson, "The Making of Europe": there is also the negative role of Islam in making Christendom, the reborn Empire, 800 AD, Charlemagne, crowned by the Head of the Church, Pope, into a land-power, no longer centred on the Mediterranean as in ancient Roman days and up to the Islamic conquests. Expansion then began in what was a union of faith and political power, in fulfilment of Constantinianism, lasting up to c. 1964 (Vatican Council II). Expansion was first into Saxony and the Baltic lands, followed by the Crusades and then the voyages of discovery and continued by British (Protestant Christian) Empire-making. The world is now European or "Western", as we prefer to say, whether we are in the Philippines or Greenland, the bonding factor being perhaps the motor car or accepted Western science generally, ultimately rooted in the Judaic monotheism. In this sense Islam is an appendage of Europe via the religious connection.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.76.51.98 (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurocentrism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eurocentrism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911233435/http://www.zedler-lexikon.de/blaettern/zedlerband.html?bandnummer=8&seitenzahl=1127 to http://www.zedler-lexikon.de/blaettern/zedlerband.html?bandnummer=8&seitenzahl=1127
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The biggest aspect of eurocentrism is not even discussed, india was the biggest target of eurocentrism of british empire and still to a very large extent and specially when british colonial historians were compiling indian history during indian colonisation. One big aspect was aryan debate itself. but this very fundamental aspect has been totally ignored in this article. Rameezraja001 (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurocentrism for India 

message: Eurocentrism has always been 100% about Western/Northern-Europe. There was no Europe in a political sense before the fall of Constantinople.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.148.189 (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Europe? 

message: I noticed that about halfway through, the article segues into a detailed discussion of Islamic contributions to civilization. There are a couple of issues here:
1) This content takes up (almost exactly) half the article.
2) It doesn't belong here, it belongs on the page devoted to Islamic contributions to civilization.
3) There are no sections detailing the contributions of any other group, and for good reason, it would make the article too long and doesn't belong here.
Going through the history, I found that this section was added November 2019 as part of a school project. However, this was not a class in Eurocentrism but rather in "Science and Civilization in Islam." To meet the quota for class credit, students ended up bloating the page with extraneous details (that were relevant to the class, but not the article).
Perhaps the first edit (which was just the first two sections, or part of it) should remain, but I think the rest should be moved to the/a page that discusses Islamic contributions to civilization.
Another issue is the page setup/outline. In sections 4-7, each scholar is given their own section, which is a paragraph each. Shouldn't those be bundled? Then we have 8-10, each group (America, Latin America, and the Islamic world) has its own section. I think it would make more sense to include them (as subsections) under one section like "Ethnocentrism by group/civilization/culture" or "examples/effects of Ethnocentrism" (if something like the latter is used, it would include the "In the beauty industry" section).
Finally, it seems that there might be a lack of consistency / redundancy potential. First, we have examples of ethnocentrism by people/places, which includes the Latin America section, which discusses beauty. Then we have a separate section focusing on a specific thing that is impacted - "In the beauty industry," which includes "South Korea" as a subtopic, as well as "Mexican doll experiment" (I'm not sure that the doll experiments belong under "In the beauty industry" altogether). Should we be categorizing by both of these two overlapping criteria - people/places and things/areas?
Yaakovaryeh (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half the article details Islamic contributions to civilization 

message: As this section only contains a singular sentence that barely has anything to do with the rest of the article I'm removing it.Rody1990 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  America section 

message: I have opened a topic on the Eurocentrism of Wikipedia here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia#Eurocentrism_on_Wikipedia
Eurocentrism is the way in which the historiography of the French Revolution has been written.
Robert R. Palmer's conception of Western history, for example, with the American and French Revolutions presented as the two most important events leading to modernity, has been considered by David Armitage to be “guilty of almost every current scholarly sin—Eurocentrism, essentialism, teleology, diffusionism...” (Foreword to The Age of the Democratic Revolution) Wordyhs (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And I removed your thread as being off topic for that talk page. Meters (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurocentrism in the historiography of the French Revolution 

message: There is no reason for the paragraph on South Korea to be included in this article. The paragraph starts off by pointing out that South Korean beauty standards are not based on Caucasians, then states some completely irrelevant factoids about South Korean plastic surgery. This leaves the reader wondering why the paragraph is in this article to begin with.
The idea that South Korean beauty standards are based on Caucasians is itself a very Eurocentric viewpoint that is overwhelmingly rejected in Asia and outside the West. Even in the West, most people immediately recognize that South Korean celebrities obviously don't look European. The idea that South Korean celebrities look European isn't a view that exists due to observations of reality, it's more of a view that exists because some people desire it to be true for different reasons. If this paragraph was ironically trying to argue that Eurocentric view originally, it has been debunked already in this article. There seems to be no reason for the paragraph to still exist. Biosaurt (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Korean Beauty Standards 

message: The article in the present form is confusing. Europocentrism is treated throughout the article as colonial and dominating other parts of the world. It clearly means Western Europe. It cannot mean Central Europe or Eastern Europe. I don't understand how a Czech, a Belarusian, a Montenegrian or a Serbian can be put into the same category of colonising and dominating powers of Eurocentrism. Itself it is racist and mmm Eurocentric - Western-Centric towards non-Western parts of Europe. 45.93.75.81 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the article or creating a new - Western Europe, Central Europe and Eastern Eurole 

message: The above was removed from the article on 13 February 2024. See edit 1206872510. The rationale was given:
On 26 April 2024, Myconix restored the contested content. See edit 1220918775. The rationale was given:
I disagree. The WP:SCOPE of this article is clearly about Eurocentrism in the form of European cultural or historical supremacy. The sources that Myconix has restored do not argue that this is the main viewpoint on Wikipedia. Samoilenko (p. 6) says that there is an under-representation of non-Western content on the English Wikipedia; a phenomenon he refers to as "Eurocentrism" -- but this is his own irregular parlance. This is clearly not the common understanding of the term as reflected by the sources.
Hube does not even use the word "Eurocentrism" but rather "pro-Western bias"; which is not necessarily the same thing as Eurocentrism.
This content misleads the reader in to assuming that Wikipedia's POV is Eurocentric in the sense that it assumes or promotes European supremacy. That is not what these authors argue, and it is not a mainstream idea, either. 
Wikipedia has been analyzed over and over again by respectable sources for bias. None of thess sources have identified a Eurocentric bias. They have identified gender bias, for example. But not a . If this were the case, one would be able to cite more prominent, peer-reviewed sources to support this notion. Instead, this is a mis-representation of a conference essay and a university thesis.
Per WP:SCOPE, WP:NPOV, the best course of action to my mind is to relocate this content to the more general scope of ideological bias on wikipedia. 2600:100C:B024:227D:5D60:7D45:783E:9415 (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading NPOV