Talk:Clash of Civilizations/Archive 1

message: Move to talk for elaboration.  I don't see how this thesis applies to the Taiwan straits.  Arguing that Taiwan is Chinese, doesn't explain the situation, nor does arguing that Taiwan is Western explain things like the fact that the United States has limited support for Chen Shuibian.
:Some other events which have vindicated Huntington include the role played by the United States and other Western countries in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the Western concern over whether Iran's nuclear program will result in Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, the crisis in the Taiwan Straits, the problems in Kosovo, and the continuing problems in Cyprus.
User:Roadrunner
I signed your comment above.
I'm guessing that what the author of the above passage was trying to get at was that the Taiwan Straits conflict is one between the PRC (a Sinic civilization) and the United States (a Western civilization). --Lowellian 18:55, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
That's one interpretation, but it's one that hardly vindicates Huntington's thesis.  Huntington's thesis would not account for the fact that the US has at times tilted (however slightly) toward Beijing in the last year.
Roadrunner 19:41, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Universalizing civilizations include:  The West, Orthodox-Slavic (to some degree), and the Islamic civilization.  Particularistic civilizations that stress differences among peoples include: China (though with some semi-universalizing traits), Japan, and to some degree the Hindu civilization.  Therefore the critics of the theory often demonstrate its predicition through subtle synthesis.
Roadrunner 19:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: There seems to be a mistake when you classify India & Pakistans war as a clash of two different civilizations. Most modern-day Pakistanis are descendents of Indian Hindus who converted (or were compeld to convert) to Islam. The basic population of Pakistan & of North India is or Aryan stalk. The language Urdu used by Pakistanis and Indian Muslims is nothing but Hindi loaded with Arabic words & written in Persian script.Moreover you cannot distinguish between Indian Muslims who number 160million and Pakistanis. Hence even though Pakistanis dont accept it they are a part of Indian Culture. So India & Pakistan conflict can be termed as a clash within a civilization not clash of civilizations.
:According to the author Pakistan is the Islamic sphere of civilizations. The article is about his theory. :ChrisG 18:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-Pak conflict not a clash of civilizations 

message: The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here.  Uriah923 06:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of ON content and quality of reference 

message: Could we get some sources for these claims? Huntington writes about immigration and might agree with some of these ideas, but the clash of civilizations is a bit more specific and focused on geopolitics. Tfine80 23:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Riots 

message: Where does Huntington place Israel in his theory? It's in the Mideast but seems to me to be more a Jewish part of the Western world in some ways, or a Jewish part of the Mideast in some other ways. 204.52.215.107 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: I am not sure what is meant by the sentence: The demographic decline of the West, combined with its inability to unify and even a decadent society, risked significant dangers.
Can someone who has read Huntingtn clarify? Is the following rewrite accurate: "The demographic decline of the West, combined with its inability to present a united front, and a state that Huntington considers decadent mean the West will face significant dangers."
Texteditor 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is meant by "...West's...inability to unify and even a decadent society, risked significant dangers" 

message: What is this all about? "Clash of Civilizations critics often target traditional culture and internal reformers who do not wish to Westernize whilst modernizing. They sometimes claim that to modernize is to necessarily become Westernized to a very large extent. Those who consider the Clash of Civilizations thesis accurate often offer in refutation of its argument the example of Japan, claiming that is not a Western state at its core." 
Why would those who consider the thesis accurate offer a refutation of its arguments? Something has gone wrong here, but I can't edit it because I find these sentences incomprehensible in their current form. Can someone who understands what is intended please edit this bit so that the meaning is clear? Metamagician3000 08:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily: the theory of a "Clash of Civilisations" says that unavoidable conflicts are born from a fundamental incompatibility of cultures. Arguing that traditional cultures become hostile to the Western culture when confronted to the necessity to modernise removes this burden from a hypothetical fundamental incompatibility, and puts the blame on the fact that any traditional culture in the modernisation phase will feel "westernised". This explains why countries and people of traditional cultures sometimes seem to have a deep hostility to the Western culture, without using any sort of fundamental incompatibility in the explanation. Rama 08:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I think it should be "this argument" (referring to the one in the pervious sentence). The point is that unlike some development theorists who equate modernization and Westernization, Huntington focuses his definition of "Western" on Christianity and the liberal tradition, and not especially markets and capitalism. Thus in Huntington's model, while non-Western states might adopt some institutions from the West as they modernize, they will retain their own civilizational identity. While a lot of third-world reformers want to Westernize their countries in order to modernize, Huntington sees any explicit program to Westernize a country as extremely likely to fail (cf. his thoughts on core countries). Christopher Parham (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Aside from a few typos, that edit looked solid, I think it brings out the point well. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another bit that's hard to understand

message: "Civilization is a damned good thing, if somebody would try it" Charlie Parker (1920 - 1955)
(84.192.176.157 11:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language of the Bird

message: I came across an interview on Booknotes where SPH mentions the arrival of the Huntingtons in the U.S. in 1633.
This may be of interest but I'm  not sure where you would put that.  It may have some bearing on his world view.Abu Amaal 03:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: This isn't mean to be political, only an observation.  In the course of the War on Terror "Clash of Civilizations" has become almost a cachet for the conflict with Islamism.  Certainly Islamism itself does see it that way from their perspective on history - and destiny.  What struck me while pondering various news bits today, knitting them together as it were, is that the US seems unaware of the scale of the game which goes far beyond two civilizations.  However the various spheres of civilization are defined or distinguished, the urgent fact of the increasingly global community - the immediacy of everywhere else, and the growing similarities and convergence of all civilizations; either in a violent dialectic, or one that comes to a  peaceful resolution - the most unlikely of all outcomes, unfortunately.  Add onto to that the growing planetary emergency of global warming, and there's a lot at stake in the bigger game.  
It's not the doom and gloom that must all sound like a listing of that I'm concerned with here; I've grown used to it.  What I'm raising is the notion that the current public usage of it - in the US media arena, that the theme of civilization-clash (wie sagt es auf Deutsch, bitte?) is limited in that usage to Islam vs Christendom - as if nothing else were a problem.  Well, other than North Korea, but that also involves China directly, unlike Afghanistan, where China's interests are in maintaining the stability of its own Islamic populations just east and northeast of there; so supporting the American cause from there over to the MidEast is in China's best interests.  India cannot take part because of its own Islamic neighbour-state, only recently being drawn into peace talks (perhaps by the American presence in the region, as a precaution; a united subcontinent would be immensely more powerful than a divided one - as Gandhi and Nehru knew.  It is interesting that Europe, even Russia, is almost a bystander in the whole affair in terms of the realpolitik; the cause is American geopolitics, not European but as with China it may be the only way to stem the variour problems with Islamism in their own nations, and also in global tactical terms; for a united Europe is, too, potentially a global superpower on the same order as China or the United States or - soon, again - Russia (if not as part of Europe, that is).
The Great Game is afoot, for those out there who know their 19th Century diplomacy; only there's more players now than there were then, and the weaponry is at lot nastier and potentially world-destroying if ever used (by any side, but a launch would never be only one side....).  
Sorry for the long digression; I know this isn't a blogging page and I don't mean to overly rhapsodize on world politics; it only strikes me that the scale of Huntington's thesis or the multi-civilization geopolitic of the current era is a very different sense of "clash of civilizations" than in the way that CNN, Time and others have used and repeated it; taking the title of the book, but only one geopolitical theme and coopting the phrase to a purely binary meaning; almost apocalyptic in tone sometimes in its use, but I don't mean to politicize.  The idea is that  the page should reflect something to the effect that the popular usage - as derived from or directedd by media usage - is different from the full scope of what's in the book.  I note that the "Recent issues" section is entirely West vs. Islam events; giving the impression that the clash of civilizations is only about that dialectic, and no other forces are at play, as if there were no other players in the game.  
What was a simple observation was not meant to become an essay; the essence is that there is a divergence between how this (and Hayakawa's title) can be so easily taken out of context, and are; and that listing of civilization-clash events in other eras and regions, both current and historical; those connected with the US-themed usage of "clash of civilizations" could be so grouped as "current American media use" (and, well, like I said, where Al-Queda is coming from on their end is also a clash of civilizations; that's how they define themselves) and that the rest of the list would be the US vs China in the western Pacific, or the Islam-Christendom thing in sub-Saharan Africa (in which Darfur is only the latest pawn in the game), and so on.
I'll leave it at that, and hope someone can condense my thoughts, if they're worthwhile, into Wikipedia-style text, which my habitual writing/thinking style isn't.  If this should be on some other page somewhere and does not fit in terms of usage of this Talk page let me know and I'll move/remove it elsewhere.Skookum1 02:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current media use vs Huntington's title/thesis

message: No doubt the common currency of the phrase "Clash of Civilizations" is due to Huntington's book and thesis; but is his thesis all that original in historiography?  I'm thinking back to Toynbee's extensive works on "spheres of civilization" and the ways they have interacted over the centuries; and are bound to.  Classical geopolitics - Ratzel, the shatterbelt theorists, and others, also deal with the concept of "clash of civilizations", and I'd even venture that this easy-to-construct phrase is not of Huntington's coinage.  Not that this is Da Vinci Code vs Holy Blood and Holy Grail, only that perhaps this article shouldn't be so focussed on the contemporary account as popularized by Huntington, but also make at least some comment that the ideas expressed were already current in histographical/geopolitical circles before popularized to the masses in best-seller form...Skookum1 19:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Toynbee vs. Huntington

message: fictitious name:angel right/05.07.2006/09:10 U T C
the last president of iran has set forth the discussion of civilizations. approximately most of the world , accepted this opinion . but i did not hear that anyone found it out or declared that he has decided to introduce the islamic civilisation not iranian civilisation. he decided to mix the original ancient iranian culture and civilization with imported islamic orders and introduce it as iranian  civilization. in the event that the iranian original ancient religion has been zoroastrian not islam. i  as an iranian and approximately all real iranians are impatiently waiting a real discussion of civilations with permition of defend of national civilization to any non government defender. we request of any powerfull ternational society to provide this opportunity.
thanks, angel right --84.11.38.68 16:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction of discussion of civilizations 

message: The author of this article lists Huntington's civilizations (Sinic, Western Christendom, Orthodox, etc, etc).  But the list is wrong.  I don't mean Huntington's list is wrong (well, it is a bit nuts, but that's another matter).  I mean that the author of the Wiki article made at least two major mistakes in what should have been an easy task.
First, the author would have us believe that Huntington listed "Buddhist" as one of the major civiliazations.  That is flat-out not true.  In fact, on page 48 of his book, says, "...Buddhism, although a major religion, has not been the basis of a major civilization."
Secondly, Huntington did NOT include "Western Christendom" as a civilization.  It was "Western" in the book - see page 46.  Yes, he does delve into the obvious identity-cultural link between Christianity and "the West."  But for him, the West is NOT one of the civlizations that defines itself by a major world religion.  That is a major underlying point in the book - the West's pluralism and secularism.
Third, Huntington does not list the British Caribbean islands as a distinct civilization.  
I think that the first point above is quite serious and needs to be corrected in this article.
:Huntington lists the Buddhist civilization among the major civilizations, but you are right that he is not completely consistent in this case. I deleted the word "Christendom" because of the reasons that you mentioned. The British Caribbean islands are considered a distinct civilization in Huntington's book, but they do not constitute a major civilization. I hope the text is now clearer. Tankred 21:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes concerning major civilizations 

message: I deleted the short "Misconceptions" section recently added by 69.249.97.64. The section made two claims. First, the hypothesis that "The clash of civilizations predicts increased numbers of wars" is argued not to be derived from Huntington's theory. Well, the hypothesis is in line with Huntington's own words. In his essay, Huntigton explicitly predicted a change in frequency of conflicts: "conflict between groups in different civilizations will be more frequent, more sustained and more violent than conflicts between groups in the same civilization". Second, 69.249.97.64 argued that Huntington's critics ignore his view that states would remain the key actors in IR. Well, none of the critical studies cited in this article does it. Tankred 00:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huntington predicted a change in the frequency of different types of conflicts, relative to one another, not a change in the overall level of conflict. (per the quote you give above). Christopher Parham (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. I mean, the whole "misconbceptions" section was not very relevant because the cited critical studies of Huntington deal with the relative, not absolute numbers. Tankred 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misconceptions

message: Would anyone care to clarify this passage please:
:He believes that some of the factors contributing to this conflict are that both Christianity (upon which Western civilization is based) and Islam are: Missionary religions, seeking conversion by others Universal, "all-or-nothing" religions, in the sense that it is believed by both sides that only their faith is the correct one. Teleological religions, that is, that their values and beliefs represent the goals of existence and purpose in human existence More recent factors contributing to a Western-Islamic clash, Huntington wrote, are the Islamic Resurgence and demographic explosion in Islam, coupled with the values of Western universalism - that is, the view that all civilizations should adopt Western values - that infuriate islamic fundamentalists.
What is "conversion by others Universal"?  And, what is the predicate of the sentence beginning with the word "Teleological", and where does it stop? Maybe  "conversion of others" is meant, and some  periods are missing?  I don't want to fix it myself cause I'm not sure what is meant.
Thanks
Sukkoth 10:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording 

message: The Darfur conflict cannot be an example here, as that conflict is between Arabic-speaking Black African Muslims, and non-Arabic speaking Black African Muslims (without prejudice as to the cause of the conflict).  See any Wiki article about it, for example, Janjaweed.  Therefore, This is not a conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims.  Perhaps the cotributor confused it with the conflict in South-Sudan/ Equatoria.  
The conflicts in northern Nigeria might be a better example of an Islamic-"African" conflict, although Islamic-Christian would be more accurate.
Sukkoth 10:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in "Recent issues" 

message: I have recently reverted the addition of "Ethinic cleansing in Bangladesh" by User:Sujoyiit (aka 130.126.228.190?). The list of "recent issues" should include articles in Wikipedia. It is not a list of external links. If we start adding external links about all ethnic conflicts in the world, this will become the longest article ever. Moreover, websites are often partisan and they contradict each other. To sum up, I believe the  edit put an external link to an inappropriate place of an inappropriate article. Tankred 17:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent issues

message: I differ with user:tankred in that the "recent issues" need not "necessarily" include articles within wikipedia ( although this is mostly the case). The external link is provided "only" for the user reference. Websites can be partisan and contradict but that is for the users to decide which one to accept. Removing edits just because someone doubts authenticity of a source is not a wiki policy. Finally, I disagree that the link is inappropiate since is at the core of "Hindu-Islamic clash" as mentioned in the book (although not this particular case).
I expect user who wish to omit my addition to "first settle" the issue with me (user:sujoyiit) by email or talk page instead resorting to unilateral deletions.--Sujoyiit 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind creating an article (at least a stub) on Wikipedia about that conflict? I am still not convinced that putting two external links inside the list of "recent issues" is a good idea. I am afraid that someone from Bangladesh will put there a third link with an opposing POV. I do not question inclusion of the conflict itself, but the description should follow the style of the list, it should be NPOV and it would be safer for the integrity of this article if you add a link to an article in Wikipedia instead of two other websites. Tankred 19:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice and accomodating my viewpoint. I am new to working in wiki, so I'm unaware of the details. I would work to create an article on the conflict. As far as someone adding an opposing POV, I welcome different POVs. I believe wiki encourages different POVs in its articles as long as it doesnot start an editing war. The onus lies on the readers to judge. Sujoyiit 20:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic cleansing of minorities in Bangladesh  

message: Who decides wich conflict will be linked in, and wich not? I don't see clear references, just popular believes, and some ethnic conflicts listed as civilizational clashes, wich are quite constrained to be listed here as a "recent issue". Clash of civilizations is about the clash of civilizations, where civilizaitions are clashing. Like Ukrainian presidental elections, tha israeli-arab conflict, international terrorism, and such. Wars other than the former Yugoslavia's (Kosovo, Croatia vs Serbia) are tipically one of those constrained ones. You misunderstood Huntington? --Vince hey, yo! :-) 10:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Recent Issues" 

message: *"La revanche de Dieu" ~ God's revenge - the revival of the religions, and the renewal of religious wars/conflicts
*The types of civilizations - 1. universalist (west), 2. agressive (islam, sinic), 3. weak (Latin America, Africa), and 4. indecisive (Hindu, Orthodox, Japanese)
**The sructure of a civilization: 1. member states, 2. core state(s) - the "leader" of the civ 3. torn countries (this is mentioned) 4. the lone states (also just a line) 5. switching/aparting states (from a civ to another, like Turkey from Islamic to Western)
*The poles of the World will be those core states and global interests will be replaced by interest spheres. These interest spheres: 1 Western world 2. Russia and its surroundings 3. China and it's interests 4. Islam
*Islam's internal conflicts are mainly because of the absence of a core state and the fight to be the core (leader) state. in the Islam states, loyalty to the tribe is above the loyalty to the state. Statehood is secondary, since those are just the borders of the former colonies.
*The revival/upcoming of the local majority's culture (nationalism) like in Slovakia, Serbia, etc. The importance of cultural identity also grows fast (and "high").
The identity crisis of the 1990s, wich lead to the new order of civilizations
*"Human rights imperialism" - forced weternization (for ex Iraq), in the name of human rights.
Religions are more important in civilizational clashes, than ethnicity or such.
And some more. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing/Mixed parts 

message: See Talk:Clash of Civilizations/Archive_1 for the archived discussions from prior to this year. Kyle Cronan 05:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created Archive 

message: Rastinny 11:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rastinny, I have moved your essay to Talk:Clash_of_Civilizations/Rastinny_essay so that it doesn't take up so much space here.  Hope you don't mind, but I figured you just weren't aware that you can do that (it took me long enough to figure out!). Kyle Cronan 07:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clash Of Civilizations 

message: Atleast with regards to India. I dont think it does justice to Sikhs,Jains,Bddhists or even India's 150 million Muslims to pegionhole Indian civilization as a "Hindu civilization". Whats more the South East Asian countries decidedly have cosiderable Hindu influence. I know Huntington labels it as such, but the map makes it look as if Wikipedia is endorsing his hypothesis. I mean c'mon you dont need a grossly incorrect map on this article. This isnt Clash of Civilizations of Dummies or something, is it?
 Amey Aryan DaBrood© 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that Huntigton's conceptualization is highly problematic. But this is an encyclopedic entry about his controversial theory. Wikipedia does not endorse any specific theory, it just tries to summarize all of them. That is why the map should follow what Huntigton actually wrote in his book. But there is also a section about the published criticism in the article. Tankred 20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that map is 100% WP:OR. For example, the Turkic speaking countries of central Asia, Albania and Bosnia are remarkably secular due to their communist past and in some cases multiethnic with significant non-Islamic populations. How can they be classified as part of the "Islamic World" when Turkey is not? Generalizations like that should not be made, at least without sources.--Domitius 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, just read the article: there are a lot of #Missing/Mixed parts. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 04:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The clash of civilization map is incorrect 

message: As we all know this is a major issue within the Huntington framework.
Even on this wikipedia page the information is carelessly contradictory, as Bosnia and Herzegovina is placed in the Orthodox camp on the map and in the Islamic camp in the text. 
I am here to propose a solution.
As we all know Bosnia and Herzegovina is a region particularly relevant to the clash of civilizations concept because the three major groups there, the Serbs (Orthodox), the Bosniaks (Muslim), and the Croats (Catholic) connect their national identity largely with their religions (civilizations). As Huntington observed, this led to a clash of these 3 civilizations and a civil war. The country is now an independent state for the first time in history and we are puzzled as to where to place this country on Huntington's map.
The solution is simple: Bosnia and Herzegovina is divided into 2 distinct entities, The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Serb Republic (Republika Srpska). Each entity takes up roughly 50% of the geographical area. (see Subdivisions_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina on wikipedia) The population of the eastern region, Republika Srpska, is nearly 90% Serb and thus 90%+ Orthodox. 
The other entity, The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is 70% Bosniak and 28% Croat. That second entity may yet see a struggle between the Islamic and Western civilizations, but one thing is clear...
The western borders of the Orthodox Civilization must be drawn at the Republika Srpska, including this entity into the Orthodox world. This is a notion Huntington himself would certainly agree with, and the solution that makes the most sense. Bosnia and Herzegovina is far too divided along civilizational lines to be represented as a whole single entity on the Huntington map. It is Huntington's view that any such country that embodies clashing civilizations will meet the same fate as Yugoslavia itself in the near future: civil war and ultimately partitioning of territory along civilizational lines. 
I propose we make this change to both the text and the map, dividing Bosnia and Herzegovina by its distinct entities.
--24.150.77.3 23:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosnia and Herzegovina 

message: I took me quite a while to find this article, being that I was using "Civilisations rather than the American "Civilizations". I'm not a pro at Wikiediting, so could someone put a redirect to this page from the former's spelling? Thanks --AQjosh 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since 13:42, January 13, 2005, there exists Clash of Civilisations and since 17:06, March 24, 2007, Clash of civilisations, so I don't really understand why you had difficulties. --Cyfal (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  S vs Z 

message: I just changed in a slightly bold/choleric action the main article on Samuel P. Huntington. Maybe I should have waited for a reactions on my entry in the talk section Talk:Samuel P. Huntington#Coinage:_The Clash of Civilization. 
BUTWhat I cut out now is an unsourced contribution in brackets, that suggests the following influence on the "Clash of Civilization" : (inspired by Polish scientist Feliks Koneczny) My hope is that the author might be around, and strictly it belongs here. LeaNder (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence on "Clash" - [[Feliks Koneczny]]?

message: We learn a lesson from Harvard clashes. See the historical instances in the following sections. --KYPark (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard clashes 

message: the map/theory is laughable. It has greece painted with the same color as russia and whatever is "at that side of the world" just because of the religion denomination. i suspect the guy is a fanatical christian of a certain denomination seeing only black or white for regions never visited or even cared to read something more than a few sentences about them. greece, the country that gave the roots of the western civilization and the word that names europe. not only this theory is ridiculous, the whole article should be at least renamed to ".. (book)" or ".. (Huntington 's view)" --Leladax 11:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure about that analysis. It is telling (and contrary to your views) that most historians refer to the Greco-Roman foundations of western civilization. The roots of the latter are not to be found in the differentiation of Roman culture (much less the schism between the churches). Moreover, the Renaissance and Enlightenment were heavily influenced (if not outright shaped) by the so called "re-discovery" of ancient Greek culture, and we all know their importance in the creation of the modern western world. 84.254.35.239 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Greco-Roman. That implies the fusion of Greek and Roman culture that occured after the rise of Rome. Also, the same Classical Greek culture that influenced the West also influenced the Muslim World long before the Enlightenment - Remember that the Muslim World played a very important role in preserving Greco-Roman knowledge. Does that mean the Muslim World is part of the West, too? That Greek culture influenced the Western World long after its prime does not make ancient Greece, or modern Greece, part of the Western World. The knowledge that influenced the Enlightment was Greek in origin, but it was analyzed and reinterpreted in a different cultural context, that of Western Europe. The Western World doesn't really begin to emerge until the late stages of the Roman Empire, with the fusion of Greco-Roman, Christian, and indigenous Western European (Celtic and Germanic) influences. The elements as they existed seperately prior to this fusion are not Western in and of themselves.
* There is nothing "laughable" about the classification. Huntington wrote about MODERN civilizations, not ancient civilizations. Greece is not a civilization in the modern world. Greece now is just a third-rate country that belongs to the Orthodox civilization headed by Russia. 66.65.129.159 (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  "Third rate"? That seems more like a comment intended to create offense, rather than a good faith contribution to the discussion. Having said that, there is sometimes a seed of truth to be found even in the most inflammatory statement. In our case, there does indeed seem to be a discord between those supporting Greece's Western alignment, and those suggesting that we orientate Eastwards (in our case, to Russia) instead. 84.254.35.239 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I would not use the term "third rate" which is pointlessly offensive, it is true that Greece is no longer a major power in the world. However, I feel that a more useful rebuttal is that the theory is not about what countries go in what boxes. The point of the theory is that there are civilisations and they clash for a variety of reasons. You can still use the theory even if you decide that Greece is instead classified with the West or if Japan is classified with the Sino civilization.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.184.197 (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  greece 

message: I appreciate the usefulness of :File:Clash of Civilizations world map.png, but there remain some issues:
*it more or less accurately reflects the section content, but that content is completely unreferenced in its details.
*the colours should reflect the groupings. As they are, the eye groups" "Western" with "Sinic" and "Latin American" with "Hindu". Not a good choice. 
*the "torn" countries would need to be indicated in hatching or similar.
--dab (𒁳) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a trivial argument.  You are merely using a technical glitch as an excuse to push your POV.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mttll, you cannot edit the article in concordance with your personal point of view. (see WP:NPOV) If the original map in the source (see WP:SOURCES) represents Turkey in two cultural areas, you must respect this fact. Turkey is not the only state represented like this. You must understand that your (or my) personal point of view are completely unimportant as long as the information from the sources are not matching with them. In my opinion, I would include even European Turkey (Eastern Thrace) to the islamic cultural area. But does my personal opinion matter? I think it doesn't. --Olahus (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The source is quite clear:  It includes Turkey as part of the Islamic Civilization.  The glitch you ar referring to is that Eastern Thrace is shown as not part of the Islamic Civilization.  This is a technical mistake.  What holds for Anatolia holds for all of Turkey.  You are just cynically exploiting a printing error to push your POV.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It's been fixed in this version of the map , which the only correct one.  Hence, this is the version that stays.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: @Mttll: A printig error? Did you read it in the erratum of the book? I doubt it. --Olahus (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: the map

message: Wooah, that is some statement! I would suggest removing this sentence:"The Clash of Civilizations thesis may also be regarded as an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The ideas of Huntington and Bernard Lewis were already influential among American neoconservative figures such as Vice President Dick Cheney prior to September 11, 2001;[citation needed] Middle East scholar Gilles Kepel (2003) reports that many radical Islamists in the Middle East likewise viewed Huntington's thesis approvingly.". The claim that this theory in itself is the principal cause for conflicts between the different "civilizations" is pretty bold and does need citations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.247.238 (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-fulfilling Prophecy?

message: World politics is entering a new phase, in which the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of international conflict will be cultural. Civilizations-the highest cultural groupings of people-are differentiated from each other by religion, history, language and tradition. These divisions are deep and increasing in importance. From Yugoslavia to the Middle East to Central Asia, the fault lines of civilizations are the battle lines of the future. In this emerging era of cultural conflict the United States must forge alliances with similar cultures and spread its values wherever possible. With alien civilizations the West must be accommodating if possible, but confrontational if necessary. In the final analysis, however, all civilizations will have to learn to tolerate each other  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.28.27.68 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington 

message: Malta is counted as being part of the Muslim world. This is certainly incorrect. They are 98% Catholic and are adamently European. Their ethnicity is a mix of Arab (because of repeated invasions throughout history) and Italian (due to proximity), but the Maltese should be counted as part of Western Europe.
212.22.61.71 (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malta: a quick note 

message: Aside from Australia and New Zealand, which have obvious Western roots, has Huntington ever made any formal statements about the nations of the Pacific Ocean? It seems that this region was largely ignored. These countries are generally grouped in with the Western World, but this seems odd when you consider that Huntington considered the English-speaking Caribbean to be a distinct civilization. The linguistic and cultural roots are largely indigenous - Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian, and Papuan - rather than Western. The only real criteria I can see that would make them Western is the prevalence of Christianity, but even that is often highly sychretized with indigenous rituals such as the ceremonial use of kava. Western influence through colonization and Christianization does not seem to make Sub-Saharan Africa part of the West either, for example... --76.98.148.217 (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oceania 

message: Why Turkey is green? It is a lone country in Huntington's map.--Martianmister (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldnt Turkey and the other Turkic countries be filed under "Turkic Culture"? Or isnt that part of the clash of civilizations? NeoRetro (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkey?

message: In the third paragraph "it has been claimed" is tagged as "weasel words". Reference (#8) is provided and the text as written seems appropriate. Labelling the ideas following in the paragraph a "claim" is correct; neither clear-cut fact or an overt falsehood. I suggest removing the "weasel" tag.
JAB
:I think the point of the weasel tag is more that the claim is set out there without any discussion of who is making it or whether it is widely accepted among any particular group of scholars. Lots of things are claimed; just saying that they are is not very enlightening to the reader. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism section 

message: I majored in International Relations and Western World Studies! What is interesting is that the author
sperates Latin America as their own civilization, If I can recall it was Europeans that colonized
all of Latin America. The French, English, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch. Even in Canada is way
different than the US. Quebec is official in French. Quebec considers themselves part of Latin America.
But the world "Latin" by itself is too contraversial as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.137.103 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What differentiates Latin America from the West is the region's substantial Native American and African influences. Modern Bolivia, for example, has an indigenous majority, in addition to an indigenous president and indigenous official languages. As Bolivia's population becomes increasingly politicized, its indigenous roots seem to be getting even more strongly pronounced. Guatemala and Peru also have indigenous majorities, while Paraguay has an indigenous official language. African-derived religions are prevalent in Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba. Most other Latin American countries have mestizo or mulatto majorities, with cuisine, music, vocabulary, and other cultural aspects that are indigenous or African in origin.
In Canada, on the other hand, the Metis are relatively small portion of the Francophone population, while the larger Quebecois are more solidly Western. Quebec's indigenous people are marginalized by the mainstream, having only minor influences that are much under-appreciated. In opinion, however, Argentina and Uruguay should also be counted as "Western", apart from the rest of Latin America due to their overwhelmingly European flavor and their lack of pronounced indigenous or African influence. --74.220.50.16 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd! 

message: The article contains right now this passage:
 
"Huntington's geopolitical model, especially the structures for North Africa and Eurasia, is largely derived from the "Intermediate Region" geopolitical model first formulated by Dimitri Kitsikis and published in 1978."
There is a reference to Greek and Turkish edit ions of Kitsikis' book but it's quiteunclear to me whether Huntington has indeed been influenced in any significant way by Kitsikis. Did Huntington ever read Kitsikis' books, much less derived his theory from them? This latter claim is somewhat dubious, unless backed up with a reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazuz (talk • contribs) 22:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kitsikis an influence on Huntington? 

message: There is a problem with both the map and the division of the civilization(s) especially as it pertains to the case of Bosnia, as part of the former Yugoslavia. Huntington fairly clearly noted that Bosnia was one of those locations where, according to him, civilizations clashed precisely because of its fusion of Western (Catholic), Islamic and Orthodox influences. As such, to simply lump Bosnia into the category of "Orthodox" civilization is missing the entire point of his thesis, no?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.52.131 (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Case of Bosnia

message: The article's thesis is ridiculous concerning my country. We have absolutely no real ties with Russia at the moment. The OPPOSITE is true. There have been talks with Turkey and Russia after the "Georgia Incident" last year "If you help us with Georgia, we'll help you with Cyprus" is what Russia said to Turkey. Even if the situation is not black and white - a deal with oil by last government comes to mind - there's certainly no real certainty of ties. If you have some ties with someone and some differences, the same may be true with others. This RELIGIOUS-centric view of the world has failed. It's not the 19th century anymore.--194.219.255.153 (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, it's so failed that even in the 19th century when there were some minimal steps for Russia to help Greece gain independence from the Turks because of religious ties, even then it didn't go more than a faint attempt. The actual independence effort was almost completely abandoned by Russia and main help came from England and Germany/Austria. --194.219.255.153 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually Greece's membership in an "Orthodox civilization" is more than proven by her both fanatical and nonsensical support of Serbia in both the Bosnian and Croat wars, to the extent that Greek volunteers participated in the massacre of Srebenica, and that Greece is the one country in the world where a film opposing the Serb murderers wasn't allowed to be shown. And to the extent that when Anna Politkovskaya was murder, and other national leader offered their condemnations then-prime minister Karamanlis wished Putin a happy birthday. Greece also has *very* close political and diplomatic ties to Russia, both overt and covert in both the right-wing and the left-wing parties: to the extent that Greece has been declared the "trojan horse of Russia" in the EU. Greeks are ignorant about this level of Russian entaglement in politics, because that's how the political establishment of Greece wants it to remain -- and yet you'll note that you'll never hear a word of condemnation by any political party towards Russia, when you constantly hear words of condemnation towards France/Germany/United States/UK/etc...  Aris Katsaris (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This author is clearly clueless about Greece 

message: how can france be described as a cleft between sub-saharan-africa and france, using french guyana as an example. french guyana's state of development might be discussed, but its geographic location is definitely not in africa, but in south america.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.20.227 (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  french guyana is not sub-sahara-africa 

message: IF i am not wrong,Bhutan is a predominantly Buddhist country.Granted that it has pseudo-suzerainty with India - a.k.a Hindu civilization but that foes not stop it from labeling it as a "Hindu civilization"please help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.219.225.43 (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhutan??????? 

message: Can we change the map in the article to this version? It is much easier to read. 89.188.103.210 (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: "Guyana and Suriname (cleft between Hindu and Sub-Saharan African)" Is that really an accurate description of what Huntington said in the book? It seems ridiculous to me, but has been in the article for a long time (I found the same phrasing all the way back to 2009). --Khajidha (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guyana and Suriname 

message: this section has had no sources and a tag for practically 2 years now. If there is no source for this original research/synthesis then it doesnt belong here.(Lihaas (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huntington's predictions: analysis and retrospect 

message: This section lists a number of bullet points that it claims Huntington attributes to the clash of Islam and the west. It says that both Islam and Christianity are missionary religions, universalist (all or nothing) and teleological. I see nothing in the article that states these things but I find it an interesting comment so I was wondering if someone could source this for me?
Thanks,
Pmychang  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.213.117 (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clash of Civilizations Thesis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Clash of Civilizations. 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/20160109202339/http://www.euractiv.com.tr/ab-ve-turkiye/article/bagis-fransanin-tutumunda-degisimin-basladigini-goruyoruz-027174 to http://www.euractiv.com.tr/ab-ve-turkiye/article/bagis-fransanin-tutumunda-degisimin-basladigini-goruyoruz-027174
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030216050648/http://www.unesco.org/dialogue2001/en/khatami.htm to http://www.unesco.org/dialogue2001/en/khatami.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Considering this is the second most assigned textbook in Ivy League schools after Plato's Republic, I think the article needs to spend more time talking about its impact. It should also be rated higher on its relative importance scales. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/03/what-ivy-league-students-are-reading-that-you-arent/ - 2605:E000:1714:C080:F968:95EF:F0F8:EE22 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance and impact

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Clash of Civilizations. 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/20130629170348/http://www.aei.org/issue/29196 to http://www.aei.org/issue/29196
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720165019/http://edvardas.home.mruni.eu/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/huntington.pdf to http://edvardas.home.mruni.eu/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/huntington.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120228191100/http://www.transnational.org/Columns_Power/2009/1.Palestine_Civilisation.html to http://www.transnational.org/Columns_Power/2009/1.Palestine_Civilisation.html
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) 23:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The picture used to accompany the article does not appear to be of the book The Clash of Civilizations, as stated, but rather of the edition of Foreign Affairs magazine in which Huntingdon originally proposed his theory. Will I just go ahead and make the appropriate changes or does anyone have any objections? Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Picture