Talk:Clash of Civilizations

E. Said block quote excised and reproduced here for posterity

The following quote was excised from the article:

[The following sentence is from the article] "Especially under Said's critique fell Huntington's view of 'Islam' as a monolithical entity:"

My concern […] is that the mere use of the label «Islam», either to explain or indiscriminately condemn «Islam», actually ends up becoming a form of attack […] «Islam» defines a relatively small proportion of what actually takes place in the Islamic world, which numbers a billion people, and includes dozens of countries, societies, traditions, languages and, of course, an infinite number of different experiences. It is simply false to try to trace all this back to something called «Islam», no matter how vociferously polemical Orientalists […] insisted that Islam regulates Islamic societies from top to bottom, that dar al Islam is a single, coherent entity, that church and state are really one in Islam, and so forth.

— Said, 1997, p. xvi

I think the argument is the following: usage of "Islam" as a label to explain Islam is some form of attack. (Here I do not distinguish between an intentional act, and a foreseeable consequence of that intentional act...please, I'm not interested in discussing philosophy right now, nor in splitting hairs.) In other words, by uttering "My wife prays every day. She is Islamic", one engages in an attack, or takes a position in a debate (although the quote in the form used on the article doesn't specify what is being attacked).

Uttering "My husband believes Jesus Christ is God. He is Christian" is not an attack.

E. Said wrote something, and when I read it, I don't see how a reasonable person could take it seriously. At least in the western world, we learn at an early age that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". The most astonishing aspect of this quote is that he immediately engages in the behavior he condemns, by attempting to describe and explain an aspect of the "Islamic world". It might be useful to include this quote in an article on the particular form of argument he is making, to give the reader an example. I do not know the name of the fallacy, it is roughly "it is impossible to discuss X without taking a position on X" and in fact this is a strong form, wherein for a particular X, namely X=Islam, E. Said writes, "it is impossible to discuss X without attacking X". 173.239.78.54 (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an incredibly stupid argument that totally misses the point of the quote. Instead you paraphrase it in your delusions ignoring context. Please stop removing source because it conflicts with your anti Muslim ideology. 69.138.196.15 (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Non-POV issues with the map

Currently, the map seems to suggest that Guyana and Suriname are Hindu, which is in no way what Huntington thought. I would therefore suggest we update the map to another improved version that exists on the commons, this one. Per WP:BOLD, I've therefore updated it. Please of course feel free to revert and discuss.

Hentheden (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I reverted, and I explain here: I do not have access to Huntington's book, just the Foreign Affairs issue that introduced the idea, so I ask honestly: Does the new map still reflect the categories he puts forward in the book (1996), as the caption states? The text below the map explains that "Latin American" does not include Guyana, Surinam, and French Guyana (which he claims are "cleft" countries--combo between Afro-Caribbean and Hindu cultures). This does not align with the new map. If the map reflects some kind of updated version of Huntington's ideas, the caption should be changed at least. The text below the map makes it appear that the map is now at odds with the categorizations in the book, though (again, something I can't verify). Secondly (and less importantly), the map legend does not communicate what the lighter shade of purple indicates. Does this mean mostly/mildly Latin American?--MattMauler (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologise. I went and found a copy of the book at my library, and the map contained therein is identical to the one that you reverted to, even down to the very specific details of how the Philippines is outlined and the up-down order of Guyana, Suriname and French Guyana. In my ignorance I was not aware of the significant populations of Hindus in Suriname and Guyana. Thank you for enlightening me! EDIT: I still however think that it would be good if someone with the skills to do so could put the map into a nice vector-based format! :) Hentheden (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

4.Discuss the different cultural/civilization fault lines that are currently arguably being understood as clashing to one another.

4.Discuss the different cultural/civilization fault lines that are currently arguably being understood as clashing to one another. 196.189.243.107 (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Vectorizing the world map

• 
  Current map
• 
  Pattern-based coloration of the same, resembling the original

The original world map in the book

As you know, the current map in the article is PNG instead of the recommended SVG, and does not include South Sudan despite having Serbia and Montenegro separate. This map is also missing the smaller islands, particularly in the Caribbean. Some countries will need to be subdivided, and you will have to eyeball the land-based cuts that are not along international borders, such as the Islamic/African boundary passing through Kenya and Tanzania. I wonder if there is a cheaper way of representing the cleft boundaries (particularly, in the Philippines and in Kenya and Tanzania) while remaining faithful to CoC — perhaps, using existing sub-national divisions where possible.

I'd also like to create a new SVG lead image for Western world based on this information — there are no clefts except within French Guiana, but Kaliningrad needs to be colored separately from the rest of Russia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)