Talk:Westernization/Archives/2012

Add to Section

I don't think it's a hidden secret that Westerni(z/s)ation is a nice way of saying Imperialism or Cultural Diffusion if i want to be really nice. Since this page is a Geography start up, which is stated I suggest talking about the Sikhs in India, and Parsi in India, as well as Hong Kong. Why the language is in English and not American doesnt concern me. I think it's odd that the Japanese and an American general where the poster boys for this page. Whatever the politics are for this page I don't care. "Sh*t wont happen if I work harder" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexw6 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 09:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

-globalization isn't westernization because globalization is also the growing popularity of asian popular culture (specially of the 2 biggest developed economies of asia:japan and korea)search about the hallyu and korean dramas and pop and about the otaku subculture and manga-anime

Requested move

Westernisation → Westernization – The Westernization article was created nearly a year earlier, but turned into a redirect with the rationale "duplicated article" (see here and here) a few months after the creation of Westernisation. Please don't accuse me of Americani(s/z)ing or something. It was also predominantly spelled Westernization in the article, and I unified it after seeing this probable attempt at de-Americani(s/z)ation. It likely wasn't moved properly although I've not looked into it (such moves without moving page history are illegal under our licence and they should have been merged rather than C+P'd). Also a majority of pages link to the z article despite how long it's been this way, meaning it's not a case of a move being more trouble than it's worth, hence my suggestion. Darkildor 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting

• Support. Darkildor 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Can't argue with the logic even if it doesn't seem necessary to me. Narco 04:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. American imperialism needs all the help it can get these days. LuiKhuntek 07:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Though I do not think that it really matters. RoLeoVers 17:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Error of Fact

Acculturation is not a specific term for Westernisation. Children are accultrated when they are socialised into any culture. China is acculturating Tibetans, Mongols and Manchu into Han society as Japan has acculturated the Ainu. This needs correctionJohn D. Croft 19:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Conrad Phillip and his book Window on Humanity actually should be cited as Conrad Phillip Kottak. He even has his own webpage on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Kottak. See, Window on Humanity: Conrad Phillip Kottak: ISBN 9780072890280. I changed it, but it was changed back. Susanmazur (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Edward Said's criticism

I've only read about what Said had to say, but doesn't he make the case that "the west" is a phony construct of some sort. He wrote a book titled "Orientalism". I'm pretty sure that book talks about "the other", as compared to "the west", i.e. western Europe and its off-shoots. VeriGGlater 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

In the Territorial Section, I'm pretty sure it's indisputable that the roots of the West were Judeo-Christian. Try http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/terrorism/root_cause.htm , http://astro.temple.edu/~ruby/wava/forbis/forbis-four.html or http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0365/is_n4_v41/ai_20377514/pg_4 Devv2 (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Territories: Japan is Western and Latin America no???

I think there is a poor conception of what is to be Western. The cultural roots of countries like Japan and Israel are in the Asian cultures, while it is not enlisted Latin America. Western culture can not be confused only with industrialized nations. If it were like that, you should enlist Qatar es "Western".

To that Aznar said:

"Latin America is a moral en cultural community, which forms a major part OF THE WESTERN WORLD; although some people try to deny the region of these characteristic values" (Latin America: an Agenda for Freedom. José Maria Aznar, in GCG Magazie, Georgetown University, 2007).

El Viajero Paisa (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkey, western?

According to the map Turkey is sometimes considered western. By whom, when and why? Turkey is an Islamic country located on the border between Asia and Europe. It's true that the country has been under a lot of Western influence but so has almost every country in this world. In my opinion Subsaharan Africa has been at least as westernised as Turkey. Finally I just want to say that I think that westernisation is a sad thing. Aaker (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this article needs quite alot of work. It appears any emerging industrial market has been labeled as "Western." Japan, for example, is less than 1% Christian. In essence, this means their values are of an entirely different origin, and Christian influence is entirely inorganic to their culture. How can that possibly be seen as "under the influence of Western culture?" Turkey is also a poor example; they only have marginal influence from Western culture (their largest cultural influences are Persian, Islamic, and Byzantine). The only Asian countries that can possibly be considered "under Western cultural influence" are countries that have indelibly adopted cultural elements of the West into their society. For example, South Korea or the Philippines. In Japan, they don't even study the history of the West in their school system, except in its relationship to colonialism. How can they possibly be considered Westernized if their population is wholly illiterate in Western history? I think this has become somewhat of a trophy case of countries that are industrialized or in the process of industrialization, and the Western world wants to claim them all. -Rosywounds (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is a country whose majority of inhabitants consider themselves to be western, and that is a powerful argument, since there is no judge for "westernism". Also, its past reincarnations are deeply involved in the history of Europe, the continent where the west was born. Finally, Turkey is a member of NATO, the western military alliance and one of the definitions of the west, particularly during the cold war; and is a recognised official candidate to the EU. 84.90.16.239 (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Turkey is a country whose majority of inhabitants consider themselves to be western" Source? "Also, its past reincarnations are deeply involved in the history of Europe" So Spain is an Islamic country? "Turkey is a member of NATO" So Sweden is not a Western country? IMO culture and membership in international organisations are two different things. Yes Turkey has been a victim to a lot of this Westernisation, but not to the degree that I'd call it western country. Aaker (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

TURKEY IS A SECULAR COUNTRY! Turkey has a large number of muslims but is not an islamic country and it has a constitution that forbids Islamism. I couldn't say whether or not Turkey is a western nation but i would say its close ties to Europe and the US would be evidence for it being so.(86.158.127.52 (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Don't post in this section? then where should we post

I really don't understand what they mean by create another talk page. How can you create another talk page for discussing "westernisation" . As far as I know, it can only be done on this page.

I need to discuss this article. So where do I post. Pl. can the moderators be clearer and avoid all this confusion. Why don't you take the archive elsewhere. This page should be for current discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I debate the statement: Westernisation is usually a two way process

I know that in India, westernisation has been forced upon India ever since Britishers came here. Even today it is done through 'buying' certain powerful elements from our society through investing economically and technologically in our society. I would like this statement to be changed. Anyone has objections? (Masculinity (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

WP:ENGVAR/ WP:MOS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Decision to use spelling "Westernization and not "Westernisation"

---

According to WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOS, no style of English is correct, however we are to use the style of English used by the first writer/ editor. The creator and first major editor of this article was User:TonyClarke. He spelled the title as "Westernisation", [1]. It is only fair that we obey the policies of WP:ENGVAR and use the style of English first used. Wikipedia should not have a pro American agenda, it should reflect all people who speak English. I will change the name of the title per WP:ENGVAR. Ijanderson (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be pro- or anti-American. This appears to be another case of people insisting on the article being at their version of the "correct" spelling, on both sides, and interpreting the facts according to which view they hold. As pointed out above, there was an article entitled Westernization before there was one entitled Westernisation. Yet as you point out, the author of this version had used the latter spelling.

I'm not making the case for either version of the spelling - only a case for not moving the page back and forth at three-year intervals. Recognizance (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless how the page is titled, "Westernization" or "Westernisation", the body of the article should be consistent in its usage of American or British English. As it is, the article uses a hodge-podge of spellings. As stated above, the MOS indicates we should use the style of English used by the first write/editor. So should we change all the "-ization" spellings to "-isation" in the body of the article? I'm willing to make the change.Coastside (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As per Talk:Westernization/Archives/2012#Requested_move, the decision was to move the article to Westernization based on the fact that the article was originally created with that spelling. Based on WP:ENGVAR, "Westernization" should be used consistently throughout the article.Coastside (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Westernization is different from develop

It seems that westernization in this article is related to the economy only. I don't want to be rude, but this article is pretty stupid. Latin americans for example have democratic republic, open to mixed economies, share they same origins and cultures as europeans,thus americans. Came from similar religions, have similar etiquetes, languages, governments, etc.I don't understand why it says that "can be defined as at least North America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand. North America includes the U.S.A. and Canada. Widening this definition however invites controversy. This widened definition can include these countries, or a combination of these countries..."

there is not even good references in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.235.176 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV check needed

This article has an obvious POV - that Westernization is a bad thing. More viewpoints are necessary. Allens (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The entire article must be revised

I think this entire article must be re-write, looks like the west is just UK and its extents (US, Canada, Australia and NZ), even Europe (including Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Scandinavia, etc) looks deleted from the West with the entiring Americas. Is West or English world?

This article must should be mirrored in "Western world" article.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.35.173.231 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)