Jump to content

Talk:First World/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

January 2007

i'm no expert, but could more be written about "First World" (and maybe Second World), than just redirecting to World?
Or should it wait until someone has more to write? --Tristanb i'm going to bed now anyway :)

Holy See

The Holy See is listed as a first world nation. Despite needing a citation, wouldn't "Vatican City" be more correct? Anton.hung (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Calm down

Everything is coming from the U.S. point of view. Freedomhosue and all the rest are government funded organizations. Of course allies will be on the top of the list of freedoms or developemnt and the enemies will be on the bottom. This is not about reality but how one part of the world views the other. So no more reverts or bickering.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "Third World" was created as an insult

I believe that the term "Third World" was created as an insult term by a group of ignorant wild-capitalistic (as opposed to progressive modern democratic capitalism of 21st century) entities and corporations to whom everything under "THEY" was "First World" and everything they hated and was poor by their "standards" was intentionally and insultively named as "Third World" (refer to "Trash World"). Also refer to "third sort" or "refused and robbed nations". Perhaps it was done to in some way encourage growth and development in the poor nations. So-called "First World" was known as highly militaristic, highly corporised, somehow industrialised, highly commercialised and highly de-spiritualised countries which have had many colonies in their so-named "Third World" and have been stealing overseas treasures from those countries for ages. The rest of the world to them was "Third World" no matter what. Anything those so-called "First World" countries robbed and stole from was named as "Third World". I have to mention the so-called ex-communist countries that today are more or less developed and industrialised. Then, 10-20 years ago, they simply did not exist, cause they were behind the "Iron Curtain" and thus no term "Second World" existed up until late 1990's. Sorry, some of you may be hurt or disappointed by my post, but I told you the truth, the plain truth and nothing else. Today the world is different, - USA may be heading towards becoming rather a Third World country while China may be fast becoming a First World country even if their GDP is still vastly different. Myself as European I am a totally neutral observer and that is all. Europe has a good mix of economies, from very poor (Moldova, Albania) to medium wealthy (Lithuania, Hungary) to very rich (Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway) and I would not call Europe as "First" nor "Second" nor any other "World". Please, you, the cash pockets of the world, do not create nor use any insultive terms anymore. Everyone deserves a decent life and respect. John from Vilnius, Lithuania.


Yeah that's great and all but this is a Wiki page for information. Personal politics and beliefs and disregarded and complete neutrality is necessary. Also please sign your posts--122.104.85.99 10:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

History goes back more than 50 years...

Drop the NATO talk, there is the old world, the new world, and the third world. I believe their once was an old world, new, and third world, but how do you really know? I understand that for certain sciences, they need something to go by but still were in the new ages get a grip unless someone can explain to me that I am wrong please do so^_^

This comment is as close as any withou an understanding of the reason for the First World, Second World titles.

Until the 15th century there are only references to the Ancient World (Pre Christian Era), and the Modern World (post Christian Era). Then Suddenly with Columbus discovery of the Americas, there are references to the Old world (known pre Columbian civilizations, and the New World (post Columbian discoveries including the Americas, the and Oceania). After World War II, a new global perspective arose that separated out the under-developed nations and labeled them the Third World.

It is only those less educated people who are ignorant of the Old World, New World, and Third World categories, that have become familiar with the Third World title and have abitrarily decided that there must be a First World and a Second World in order to have a Third World. These two erroneous and abitrary titles have primarily come into popular use in the United States, where the U.S. is naturally considered to be all (or certainly the largest part) of the First World. The Second World category has variously had other nations allocated to it. Sometimes it is the rest of the Civilized (Developed) World. On other occasions it is used to refer to "Old Europe" as opposed to "New" Europe, which is permitted to be a part of the First World along with Japan and sometimes such places as Australia and New Zealand.

In Europe and the Far East, the First and Second World categories are virtually unknown. However this will change as these arbitrary and unexplained titles become more frequently used. As leading newspapers, notably American newspapers, use the terms without explanation of their meaning, they will become a part of contemporary language and eventually one or more of the prestigious dictionary publishers will include the terms and apply their usage-research results do the descriptions. That research may one day include the contributions to this WIKI. so do your own careful research before editing these pages.

Germany is united, correct the map :-)

I find it interesting that you think that "sometimes such places as Australia and New Zealand" are "permitted to be a part of the First World". While I am As far as I know, they have a high HDI, high GDP per capita, speak English and have Western culture and societies. You obviously haven't been to either of these places/are slightly ignorant.

AUS HDI: 0.955 (3rd in world) AUS GPD p/c: $30,897 (14th in world) NZ HDI: 0.933 (19th in world) NZ GPD p/c: $24,769 (27th in world)

Well, you know what, countries like Singapore and Qatar etc. are also labelled as Third-World,

Singapore HDI: 0.916 (25th in world), GDP p/c: $32,866.670

Whoever wrote the above reguarding Australia and New Zealand is missing the point; the user who contributed the orginal discussion point was arguing that there is no such thing as First and Second World countries, just Old, New, and Third world for all others. Australia and NZ could be permitted to be part of the 'New World', even though the term was already hundreds of years old by the time Europeans discovered the Antipodes. This would technically make the countries '2nd world', if you have to put a number to it (along with the US and every other country in the Americas). The terms have nothing to do with GDP, HDI, speaking english or having a western culture. Japan is a third world country by virtue of the fact it is neither in the (classical) Old world or the New.

--219.89.5.122 07:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where these ideas of First world, and Second or Third world are coming from. Perhaps in your part of the world where you live, calling countries first or third world is not common or relevant. But in the United States, and parts of Western Europe where I've lived, general use appears to be congruent with what I was taught at UCLA in my Development Economics courses. And this is, from an academic point of view, that First World denotes high income industrial capitalistic countries NOT the OLD World or any kind of territory. But rather refers to an Economic Geography not a land-based or cultural one. Third World, are countries that are generally developing in the direction of first world countries but are still overall, fairly behind the first world, in purely material NOT cultural terms. To convey this to people that needed a social science definition for First and Third World was the point of this article. You can also reference this by checking the Online dictionary of the Social Sciences where you will find the same defition (in greater detail) that I've mentioned here. --Daniel Romero Cruz 08:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence at all that the term 'First World' was ever used before the 1980s to refer to NATO countries? If there isn't it seems fairly irrelevant for the article to talk in great depth about when various countries did and didn't join NATO and their political alignment in the 50s. 82.5.202.164 08:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Nations Online (www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm), the term First, Second and Third World refers to the post-WWII segregation of the world into those aligned with USA (First World), those aligned to the communists (Second World), and the non-aligned states (Third World). However the terms did not arise simultaneously. It was for the longest time the NATO bloc vs the the Eastern Bloc countries. Then someone pointed out that there was a whole nonb-aligned movement that is neither industrialised-capitalist, not communist-socialist. This was refered to as the third world countries. But there was no attempt to rank-order the NATO & Eastern Bloc. Subsequently, with the crumbling of the Eastern bloc countries, Third world just came to mean poor countries. (And presumably since the Eastern Bloc collapsed there would be no objection to the NATO countries taking the title of "First World".)

As for New World and Old World, these refer to the Americas (new world) and Europe/Africa (old world) in the context of natural science and evolutionary enquiry. So for example you might read about differences between new world and old world monkeys (One difference I recalled was that new world monkeys had prehensile tails (i.e. Spider Monkeys), whereas old world monkeys had sad little limp tails. These had no relation to the idea of Third world countries. 121.6.27.197 15:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Issues

Turkey and South Africa are first world??? Alexandrewb 16:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No way! Turkey and South Africa are developing countries with a medium HDI and per capita income. A new map should be created without those two countries.Myway

I have learnt just today, that they're not. (see my post below) --NatovR 09:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The map of First World (blue color scheme for First World countries)

A bit strange. There is East Germany as denoted in the European portion of the map, but the CIS countries' border are also shown (and so does the Western Balkans). Would that be inconsistent with the context described in the text? --User:Fitzwilliam 09:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that Slovenia should be First World country. Its HDI index is 0.904-high which ranks it 26th in the world and GDP/pc 23,500 acording to IMF. Furthermore it is a member od EU and NATO and will adopt EURO on 1st of January 2007.

South Africa, 3rd World?

I dont know very much about this subject, but doesn't South Africa deserve to be a 1st world country? They have gold and diamond mines, and are a reletively large benifit to the econemy world wide. It is also a popular destination for tourism, famous for it's Drakensburg mountains, and World Class resorts (such as Sun City), and open spaces. I know there is still alot of room for development, but this country is a relitivly rich country --NatovR 10:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if countries get to be First World just because they 'deserve' to be. Its Human Development Index is 120th in the world - not too good. And its GDP per capita is only $12,160, which is not too good either... Sad but true. --219.89.5.122 07:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
^_^ ok thanks, I would just like to point out, that the price of goods etc. in South Africa is sort of relative to the income of the people in South Africa. Well, you learn something new everyday. So does this mean, places like China is 3rd world too? --NatovR 09:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

misnomer

First world is a mistaken back-formation from third world. Third world wasn't meant to imply that there were first and second worlds. It was came about because of the expressions old world and new world.

28 January 2007 content dispute

How come there is one person deleting everything everyone else has put down and adding his own ideas in it???? I have put no unfactual thing in the article. This person is obviously of Asian descent and wants to dominate the article. Being an Asian country doesn't mean it has a high HDI or is a first world country. We need more people so this will be evened out....equally. As examples I think we should only have 3 or 4....that's better than putting almost every single Asian country and not mentioning European countries by name. (or any other countries for that matter) Please HELP!!!....This should be a community effort...not one person dominance! Cali567 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone involved here needs to stop edit warring. Bring the discussion to this talk page. Cali567, please assume good faith. It doesn't matter where anyone is from and you need to remain civil; questioning someone's integrity because of their geography is very impolite. — coelacan talk — 03:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You know WHAT!!!...I'm not the one who started this...I SIMPLY added information....Seong or whatever deletes every other edit if it does not conform to his opinion. Wikipedia should NOT be a place for that. Now a little tattle-tail is going and trying to get administrators on his side...I'm NOT SORRY FOR SAYING THAT and I'm NOT sorry for adding that he may be of Asian descent!....Please keep everything fair...Thank You...I AM Cali567 03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You are very close to violating WP:ATTACK here. I suggest you calm down and discuss the matter, rather than resorting to name-calling. -- Kesh 04:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Guess what? I investigated this because you made the request on the Help Desk. You need to discuss the issue here and maintain a civil tone, without making personal attacks. These are not optional. You must follow our policies of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, or you will find yourself blocked. Now calm down, quit flaming me on my talk page, and start discussing content. — coelacan talk — 04:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure Thing!...who'd like to discuss??? Not many people...I see. Now, Where in the World is that seong guy??? hmmm....Cali567 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, please read our content policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In short, neither you nor Seong gets to "decide" what "first world" means nor which countries are in it. You are going to need reliable sources (see that policy again) that say "so and so defines first world as this," and "these people say that this country is first world and this one isn't". You can then cite those sources for what they say, and the end result is that the article will probably present differing points of view on what "first world" is and who's in it. That's good, as long as it's all cited, and that's exactly what our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy demands. Now, go get your sources. — coelacan talk — 04:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, it would help if we can summarize the difference of opinion here. I'll be going through the History of the page, but if Cali567 and Seong0980 will state their views along with reliable sources to support them, I'm willing to act as a neutral third party here. I will, however, expect everyone involved to maintain civility during this discussion. -- Kesh 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that's going to take a little while. Getting good sources might take until tomorrow or later for both parties. There's no rush for anyone, and WP:There is no deadline. I have recommended a little downtime, actually, per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Second step: Disengage for a while. So, please, nobody rush. When the different sources are ready, all points of view will have to be represented, per WP:NPOV. — coelacan talk — 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's step back, relax a bit and take time to assess the article & gather sources. I'm off for the night anyway! -- Kesh 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi Cali! As you know, a discussion with facts requires a mature amount of time for a civilized discussion. So lets try to take out any racial puns okay? First of all, have you read about the East Asian Tigers (Hangul: 아시아의 네마리 호랑이, in Hanji/Chinese: 亞洲四小龍) you would know that aside from Japan which was already a well developed country back then, other smaller countries took their stands and rose up. South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. They “were noted for maintaining high growth rates and rapid industrialization” (Cited from East Asian tigers from Wikipedia, 28 January 2007).

As to your accusations that South Korea is poor, would you believe it if I told you that they have actually transformed into a strong economic player during the East Asian Tiger era? “Out of all of the four Asian tigers, South Korea has the strongest economy placed at 9th place in the world, whereas the other tigers fall behind a little bit.” (Cited from East Asian Tiger from Wikipedia, 28 January 2007).

About the economy and the freedom of the Asian countries compared to Mexico, please read this Index of Economic Freedom.

In practice, the index measures: • Size of Government: Expenditures, Taxes, and Enterprises • Legal Structure and Security of Property Rights • Access to Sound Money • Freedom to Trade Internationally • Regulation of Credit, Labor, and Business (Cited from Wikipedia, Index of Economic Freedom, January 28 2007)

Did you know, greater economic freedom usually presents the country in a 1st world country group? Try to compare the top of the table ranking country with the middle, and bottom ranked country.

If you would like to compare the economic freedom of South Korea and Mexico, have a look at these facts from the same source. This source says that South Korea, and a few other Asian countries are 1st first World.

In order of rankings from Asia: Hong Kong (1), Singapore (2), Taiwan (37), South Korea (45). New Zealand is also a major player in the world economy, and they are of course given a great ranking of being (9).

Mexico: (60).


Comparing the poverty rate of South Korea and Mexico:

I can prove to you that South Korea is a 1st world country above Mexico, with insight on the poverty rates of both countries. This source says that South Korea does not have a greater poverty line than Mexico

Mexico: “the population below the poverty level has decreased from 24.2% to 17.6% in the general population and from 42% to 27.9% in rural areas from 2000-2004 [3].” (Cited from Wikipedia, Mexico, 28 January 2007)

South Korea: I cannot find any information of South Korea having a higher poverty line than Mexico, as Wikipedia has stated no such thing, the closest thing I could find with association to poor was this: “In the 1950s, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in Asia.[9] At the end of World War II, the country inherited a colonial economic system designed solely for Japan's exploitative needs. Much of the country's infrastructure was destroyed during the Korean War that followed in 1950-1953.[10] After the war, South Korea became heavily dependent on U.S. aid.” (Cited from Wikipedia, South Korea, 28 January 2007)

As you can the only mention of poverty in South Korea was back in 1950s, that is 57 years ago.

Yes you might argue that South Korea had a bit of an economic dent, but still as far as the dent went, no poverty were created. “Between 2003 and 2005, economic growth has moderated to about 4% per year.[17] A downturn in consumer spending, attributed to massive personal credit card debt, was offset by rapid export growth especially to China. In 2005, the government proposed labor reform legislation and a corporate pension scheme to help make the labor market more flexible, and new real estate policies to cool property speculation.[18] Moderate inflation, low unemployment, an export surplus, and fairly equal distribution of income characterize this economy.” (Cited from Wikipedia, South Korea, 28 January 2007). This source supports the fact that South Korea is 1st world:

A key player in economic power, did you know that a country with a strong economic power is also considered to be a well-off country? South Korea has major global companies.

“Some such as Hyundai, Samsung and LG became global corporations. In 2004, through all of this combined, South Korea joined in the trillion dollar club of world economies.” (Cited from Wikipedia, South Korea, 28 January 2007)


Aside from providing facts that South Korea is a 1st World country, lets mention others such as Hong Kong and New Zealand comparing to Argentina and Mexico.

This source also states that aside from South Korea being a 1st world country, it is also stronger than Mexico in HDI. See Human Development Index

HDI : “The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living for countries worldwide.” (Cited from Wikipedia, HDI, 28 January 2007)

As you have stated before on one of your edits in 1st World page, HDI is very important, but lets look at who is on top in HDI in each continent.

Europe: Japan 0.949 (up 4 prom) is ranked 1st, Hong Kong 0.927 (=) is second.

North America: Canada 0.950 1st, United States 0.948 ranked 2nd.

South America: Argentina 0.863 1st, Chile 0.859 2nd.

(Cited from Wikipedia, HDI, 28 January 2007)

Yes, I can see South Korea was not the top 3 in HDI in the list, but lets expand the view. In the world, South Korea is ranked (26) with a 0.912, while Mexico 0.821 was 53, which defaults your statement that Mexico has a high HDI. I see that Norway 0.965 is the top in the HDI, thus I had already included it amongst the 1st World Countries in Europe.

-- Seong0980 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on this issue: First of all, Mexico's status as a Newly industrialized country specifically precludes it from being included as a First World country. Quoted from the NIC article: "NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached first world status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their newly industrialized world counterparts." (Emphasis added) Therefore Mexico is definitely and unequivocally out. As far as South Korea goes, it is definitely technologically advanced, it is a capitalist democracy, and it not only has a lower unemployment rate than the US but has an economy marked by a fairly equal distribution of income. By all indications its economy and standard of living are perfectly acceptable. As far as Cali567's statement that Mexico's percentage of people below the poverty line is less than South Korea's goes, Mexico's level of extreme poverty was 17.6% in 2004, whereas South Korea's level of poverty was a mere 4% in 2003. You'd have to come up with some pretty solid sources to convince me that these levels have changed drastically enough in less than 4 years to give Mexico the lower number. I noticed Argentina was also added at one point; Argentina is a NIC as well, and is ineligible for inclusion for the same reason as Mexico. I haven't done any research pertaining to what other countries may or may not be eligible for inclusion in this list, I'm just trying to clear up some of the controversy over these specific countries. (Note: All specific information included in the above paragraph pertaining to the economies of South Korea and Mexico comes from Economy of South Korea and Economy of Mexico respectively.)--Dycedarg ж 08:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


I would like to see sources about South Korea's "high standard of living". The article's introduction lists "high standard of living" as pre-requisit for inclusion in "First World". One of the standard measurments for this is HDI and listing South Korea's HDI could be useful for the purpose of this content dispute. The List of countries by Human Development Index includes South Korea as a "high" HDI nation, but it also include Mexico, Slovenia, Chile, Tonga, Argentina and Bahrain. It would be my opinion that not including any of these countries could be considered "racists"... On the other hand, the definition is so subjective that perhaps the best alternative is simply listing ONLY G-7 countries in the introduction, and then add others in the main article.
Finally, remember that EVERYTHING in this article is unsourced, and it would GREATLY help this discussion to add sourced material. Hari Seldon 06:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the entire arguement and points, it has been sourced as the cited reference shows, also there is such a thing called IP check, so becareful of mulitple accounts as South korea was again deleted for no proper or valid reason. - Seong0980 29 January 2007

What are you trying to say? multiple accounts....IP checking?????...accusations.... Cali567 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, everyone STOP. Take a deep breath, and relax. As this would soon escalate into a full-blown edit war, I have taken the incentive and removed the current examples all-together, replacing them with three indisputably first-world and generic nations. Any attempts to continue pushing forward agendas or revert this article to continue in the edit war will result in administrator intervention. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank You very much...thats all we need. period. Cali567 06:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, talk about a rapid response! I won't involve myself in the dispute by arguing for either side, however I will be checking for further edit warring or any other rule violations. Remember, we are here to write an encyclopaedia, civility is essential. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to remind everyone that inclusions in wikipedia must be verifiable, in the article, not in the talk pages. Finally, I know that agressive editors can be a pain in the neck (please see Talk:Mexico) and therefore will excuse your implicit accusation of sockpuppetry. However, I remind you to assume good will.
I do not object of having South Korea listed as a first world country in the article, if proper sources can be procured. My sources (business school teachers) list South Korea as a "highly advanced" NIC, but not as a "First World Country". As I said before, the term is very subjective and for that reason I would suggest to ONLY list G-7 countries in the introduction (first paragraph), and perhaps more in the rest of the article.
Notice that I did not push for adding Mexico to the introduction, and that I did placed Mexico as a NIC.
I would like to stress that my primary point of contention is the lack of verifiable sources in this article. The whole thing should be deleted until sources are added. I will not object to any referenced material. Hari Seldon 06:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So now you have delted all the Asian countries listed, and Hexagon1, what are you even talking about? Havent you seen what were were discussing? Cali had made no arguements whatsoever, anyway besides that you have actually pushed the envelope of another editing war, you should know better. PS what lack of verifable sources? Did you not see the cited reference?-- Seong0980 29 January 2007.

Seong, Seong....I DID NOT say that Mexico was a first world country...I said it has a high HDI, which I know is not indicative of being 1st World. Mexico has a strong economy and if no one wants to include it as a country close to being 1st World I won't object. How can I? thats absurd. You seem to think I put Mexico as at the top list for First World countries, which I did not. Then there's the thing about sockpuppetry...jeez. Cali567 07:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Seong: There are no cited references in the article. There is not even a "references" section.
Note that I am not talking about references in the talk page used for arguments. I am talking about references in the article that readers may use to verify the information they are reading in this encyclopedia. Hari Seldon 07:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There you go, I added an Asian and an Australasian/Oceanian nation too. However the point of examples is that they are generic and generally indisputable. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Be un-bias, what about countries in Asia that are not South Korea related, for example I have proven many things in East Asian Tigers, HDI, and Freedom Eco, so atleast leave Hong Kong SAR and Japan out of this, South Korea is our main objective, don't you agree Cali567? Also the balanced showing of 3 countries per continent was suitable, why delete it? Also, I believe it was Coelacan or Kesh who told me that I could use other pages of Wikipedia as sources. -- Seong0980 29 January 2007.

It would be far more productive to draw the sources that those Wikipedia articles use and cite them directly. Also, the article should remain free of contentious inclusions until consensus is reached here.--Dycedarg ж 07:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No, South Korea is not our objective, and as it's not even included in the article any more, it has become irrelevant. If the arrangements previously were suitable, they wouldn't have lead to an edit war. Why don't you just stop arguing here and do something more productive. Out of your 14 main-space edits, 11 have been on this article. That's around 78.6% of your main-space edits. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
So I have to reinstate my arguement again to now instead of proving South Korea is a 1st world country, now I also have to argue Hong Kong SAR (which is a joke considering their economy is one of the top, and amongst other things) and also other countries that were delted as well. And the way you welcomed yourself into an arguement had not helped at all, attitude adjustment, its getting pointless, I stated the reference and cited the sources but you said its is useless, I spent a good amount of time on them, atleast show some appreciation. And remember, be nice and always say please, please. -- Seong0980 29 January 2007.
I would be willing to bet that no one would contend about HK or Japan, but some may object to South Korea, as some sources list the country as a NIC.
Futhermore, if we are going to have a "balance" of "three countries per continent", where are the African countries? Where is the third American country? If not enough countries fit the description entirely and in a sourced manner, then verifiability is more important than so-called "balance".
By the way, the article STILL does not show ANY sources ANYWHERE... Hari Seldon 07:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing an article is not a 4-minute process Hari, and to Seong, no, you do not have to prove anything. The point of examples is not to list every nation that could potentially be a 1st world nation, but to give solid examples of it. Due to the disputes on South Korea, it will NOT be listed as an example. Also, I see no reason to beg, if that was a personal attack I suggest you keep your temper in check. Please please. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Scrol upwards when I started my long arguement starting with "Hi Cali!". And if those reference from with Wiki are not good enough, then its back to square one. Okay, lets bring in two countries from each continent then. To be honest, you know as well as I do that Africa still has some major things to overcome to have any of its candidates to be considered 1st world. But for now, lets try this? Europe: Norway, Great Britain (or United Kingdom: we will talk about this), Asia: Hong Kong SAR, Japan. Americas: Canada, United States. Oceania: Australia, New Zealand. -- Seong0980

No, let's not. The current examples work fine, and will not give rise to dispute. Listing so many nations as examples is simply unnecessary. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He can't keep his mouth shut......

Could have stated about the pride of Mexico earlier instead of "Me too!". Anyway I am sure you are a nice guy when Wiki is offbase, I'm still waiting for your personal research though.. Sorry about the sockputtery, I guess I over-reacted, and also, everyone should be proud of their own country, especially Mexico, such great heritage and tradition originated from Spain. -- Seong0980 29 January 2007.

I'd like to know what this means?...Is it an ethnic slur? I feel that way...haha Cali567 07:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cali567, I was trying to say sorry, I guess I was a bigger man than you were, how could you not realize an apology? Mabye its a Korean problem on my behalf.

Its just to keep things a little better, I think Canada deserves as much respect as USA, and Hong Kong SAR to Japan, so 2 would be better, instead of 1 of each continent. One more of each = 8. 4 more would not be a pain. --Seong0980


I saw no apology...only remarks about my European and Mexican heritage..."proud of their own country, especially Mexico, such great heritage and tradition originated from Spain."....was thatmeant to be a sly remark...because it wasn't. Cali567 07:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources are essential. However I listed those nations as indisputable examples. Those are nations we don't urgently need to source as they are the least likely to be challenged. However, I think it is wise to source the statements in this article and then engage in any remaining disputes, backed by these sources. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken on the sources, but Cali, the least I did was apologize on the sockpuppet thing, plus I never said anything racial to Mexicans, instead you said: "Now a little tattle-tail is going and trying to get administrators on his side...I'm NOT SORRY FOR SAYING THAT and I'm NOT sorry for adding that he may be of Asian descent!." I seriously took offense to that and still had not recieved an apology, and please even though I am a Korean, my English name is spelt with a capital 'S'. Seong0980

  • Mexico's heritage and tradition DID NOT originate from Spain. It is a blend of Spanish, American, amerindian, and asian influences...
  • See today's featured article for an example of a referenced article. Sources provided in talk pages are no use. They must be referenced in the article page.
  • Lets get civility back.
  • I agree with Hexagon1 about those nations being indisputable examples that do not need urgently to be sourced. Additionally, I remind everyone that the article is about First World Countries, not a list on every single one of them. The fact that a given country or another is not included in this article does not mean that it is not.
Hari Seldon 07:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


So then we both have taken offense to what eachother had to say. I said it seperately...I did not maintain that you were anything else. I forgive you, now I'm sorry if you've taken offense to 'tattle-tail' and 'he may be of Asian descent'...Good Night.Cali567 07:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion to limit the list to G-7 counties is arbitrary, and arbitrary cutoffs without wp:reliable sources are a violation of wp:no original research. The proposal to limit the list to those that some editors see as "generic and generally indisputable" is also arbitrary, a "synthesis" and thus original research.

I am certain that neither myself nor Kesh told anyone that Wikipedia articles are usable as citations. Such references would be self-referential and the very opposite of wp:reliable sources. All sources will have to be from outside of Wikipedia. It can be helpful to look inside Wikipedia for guidance, and to argue a case, as Seong has tried to do, but as for actually citing the inclusion of South Korea, Wikipedia articles are not appropriate. The policy wp:reliable sources will tell you everything you need to know.

Hari suggests we don't need a list. However, at the present moment, considering we are in content dispute mode, it is very difficult to determine where any particular number of examples should stop. At the present time I want zero examples, so that no pov is enforced by default, and since no examples are cited (no example is indisputable, anyway).

ALSO! The next editor who references someone else's geography as a reason to question their editing integrity is going to be reported for violation of WP:NPA. — coelacan talk — 08:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reason! At last! And please cease with the childish accusations of racism, everyone, they achieve nothing but aggravate other parties. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I shall henceforth...Thank You for your equality. Cali567 08:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, thanks Hexagon, that's geography or race. Keep it out. Now, I would also like to ask a favor of everyone. When citations begin showing up, bring them to this talk page first where we can discuss precisely how to use them. I'd like to compile them under consensus first before we start edit warring over inclusion of one or another cite as well. — coelacan talk — 08:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a source; I'm not really sure how it should be used in the article but here it is anyway. Source It has a list of First World countries, some criteria for inclusion, and how some of them meet that criteria. It also cites other sources used in it that could be cited in this article as well.--Dycedarg ж 08:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Great source! We could just list all the nations from the article (except the historic first section) alphabetically, and/or show them on a map. Thoughts? In any case, further sources are always good. Any "official" source, such as from the UN or World Bank would be great, I'm looking for them now. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that, nice one Dycedarg, it seems the info provided here (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/human_development.htm) and (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/GNI_PPP_of_countries.htm) shows that in the Asian region, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore are ahead of South Korea in these two areas. So for now, I will not argue for South Korea. P.S to anyone who was concern about Cali567 and I, our disputes were solved, and an admin had sorted the siutation, so thank you guys. -- Seong0980 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Perhaps now we can focus on the article. In my opinion, one of the main sources should be the Human Development Index. What do you think of that? Perhaps the top 30 or 40 nations? +Hexagon1 (t) 08:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm I am not sure about that, it might be good. But I am trying to look for primary sources outside of Wikipedia. I'll get back to you on that one. Seong0980 29 January 2007.
I tried the HDI before remember^? But in actual fact you might be right, they have created a list there already, in Asia, North America, etc. But for now, what oyu have said alongside Dycedarg source is good enough^. Seong0980
I'm going to be the fly in the soup now. The human development index is as good a resources as any, but I have two caveats. One, we need sources saying "the HDI is a good guide to who is first world" or something along those lines. I know nationsonline is saying that, but nationsonline actually cribs from Wikipedia,[1] so we can't be sure that we aren't being self-referential there. Second, we need a specific reason to use any particular cutoff point. 30 or 40 sounds reasonable, but to pick any particular number instead of another number is an arbitrary synthesis, wp:no original research again. That's a huge pain! I know. But it's better to be referenced than arbitrary, as it will stave off future edit warring. So can we find any citations saying "we use the HDI to decide who is first world and this is where we cut off and why"? — coelacan talk — 09:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have one part of what I just asked for. Here is a citation that links HDI to first world measurement. "These data are also a reminder that first world status is itself a moving target, with Spain and Italy among the faster movers in Europe. Per capita output levels and rates of growth are not by themselves adequate indicators of economic modernization or of human welfare. GDP figures provide no information on distribution of incomes or noneconomic elements in well-being. A number of scholars and development practitioners have sought to create an alternative index that might incorporate a wider array of factors. The most ambitious such attempt has been the human development index of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)."[2] Now the harder part is coming up with specific reasons to use any particular cutoff point. — coelacan talk — 09:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that identifying a limit to listing the nations is not original research, and even if it were, WP:IAR and to a lesser-degree WP:SNOW applies here. 30 is reasonable, and is used in the article on HDI. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Over and over again on Wikipedia, arbitrary limits are discarded as original research. I won't recommend calling on IAR. I have seen things like "list of schools with enrollment over 5,000" be deleted because choosing that number was original research. I really don't see any qualitative difference here. In fact, there probably are usable citations out there for some particular cutoff. Best just to try to find them. — coelacan talk — 09:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
List of countries by Human Development Index talks about how the HDI nations are divided into three categories, high, medium and low - which would be perfect for the three world, but I can't see where that's sourced from. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll look into that further. The reason I'm insistent on this, by the way, is because I have seen numbered lists become pov battlegrounds as well. If there's no third-party cite for a number, then someone comes along and wants theirs included so they say "oh, 35 is reasonable too" or they don't like one of the entries toward the end so "it's too long, we should stop at 25". And there's no strong argument for why they're wrong, any more than there's an argument for why they're right. By using a third-party source, we don't say that any cutoff is right or wrong, we simply report that this other source uses that cutoff. And then we wash the blood off our hands. =P — coelacan talk — 09:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the disqualification of nationsonline as a source because of their "cribbing" off of Wikipedia. What they use Wikipedia (along with more than a dozen other sources) for is "To compare the reliability of data and information", not to attain said data and information. Their primary sources are seperate from Wikipedia, and I can't see how the fact that they sometimes compare themselves to Wikipedia in order to compare their reliability is justification for elimination of them as a source. It's not cribbing, and if the information itself is not coming from Wikipedia than it's not self-referential.--Dycedarg ж 09:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not flat out disqualifying them, just saying that we should get second opinions. Wikipedia wants, when at all possible, secondary sources (see WP:RS#Types of source material for the policy), but nationsonline is a tertiary source. So let's use it as a guidepost. It certainly gives us good ideas about where to look next. — coelacan talk — 09:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense.--Dycedarg ж 09:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Resuming 5 party talks

Just to make it easier for the eye, please if the 5 members could all continue in discussing the issue here. 5 members: Myself, Coelacan, Dycedarg, Kesh, Hexagon1 - (5 party talk is the title of our 1st world discussion, other members are of course welcome).

Everyone should take a break and resume the discussion later. ( Seong0980 11:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC) )

We may not define the parties that should continue the discussion, this article and its talk is open to discussion by everyone. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for not keeping up with the discussion this weekend. Other events in my life took priority, but I will be catching up tonight & tomorrow to weigh in on the discussion so far. -- Kesh 00:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Kesh, I hope everything is all right with you and the event in your life.
About the article, I really don't see why we should list any country at all. In fact, the article says that, at some point in time, the term was used to identify NATO countries (The capitalist West) against Warsaw pact countries (The socialist East). Though references for this statement would be useful, why not simply list a couple of NATO countries as examples of what a First World Country is?
After all, this article does not intend to declare any nation as "first world", or discard any as "third world". If the article is not listed here, it doesn't imply "it isn't good enough", and if it is listed, it doesn't imply "its the best".
What we should be looking for are examples that illustrate and clarify the subject matter, not to praise or declare any party as member of a group.
I understand that listing NATO countries is as arbitrary as listing G-7 countries, or listing HDI countries, or whatever other frame of reference. But if we do not decide on one parameter on which to choose our examples, then the alternative is not list any examples at all. We should answer this question first: do we want to list any example? does this article need it?
Hari Seldon 02:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe giving a sample definition for the term is best, some users may not be sure what exactly constitutes the first world and listing High HDI nations is a perfect sample definition - so yes, I believe this article would be improved with an example. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't care if there are examples or not. If there are examples, I am going to insist on using very specific principles for arriving at what those examples should be without violating the "no synthesis" part of wp:no original research. I have already come up with a cite that would allow us to say "the HDI is sometimes used as an indicator of nations' first world status".[3] (I quoted the explanation from that cite earlier in this talk page). That makes HDI usable. But we also need a citable reason to stop at any particular point in the HDI list. — coelacan talk — 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create this title to praise anyone, its easier for the eye and it was the name I used to call this topic of discussion with Dycedarg and possibly Kesh, because originaly we had 5 members in the discussion, with Khoi being replaced (also they would understand what this discussion is about straight away).

Anyway derailed off, we should try to experiment in Coelacan's part. ( Seong0980 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC) )

I don't disagree with you, Coelacan. My point is that the article has problems beyond the listing of examples that we should address and solve too:
  • HDI is menctioned only in the "See also" section. Your quote should be included in the examples.
  • The article menctions other criteria for "First World" status that may be independent of HDI. For example, the second paragraph makes implications about the western bloc and the eastern bloc, and First World status, and the third paragraph continues to talk about this Cold War divide, and of NATO as if it was a valid reference on what the First World means. Should we then assume that Greece, being part of NATO, is a First World nation? Does China, or South Korea need be part of NATO to become First World? This contradiction should be fixed.
Your citation may come a long way in fixing these problems in the article. My point is that this is not just a discussion of which countries should be listed as examples, but of the overall quality of the article as a whole.
The article also lists certain criteria that defines "First World". The Introduction menctions the following:
  • Capitalist
  • Democracy
  • Technologically advanced
  • High standard of living.
HDI is only a ranking of the last criteria. The ranking of economic freedom may give us an idea of capitalist countries. Democracies, well, that is harder. After all, China, Venezuela and Cuba call themselves "democracies" and it is very debatable. Technologically advanced? Where do we begin to define that?
In conclusion, I would suggest to first fix the article, the criteria, and the overall content, and then think about weather or not we need examples. Of course, examples are nice and probably useful, but are they crucial? And, more importantly, is it the most urgent thing this article needs?
Hari Seldon 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Okay Hari now you are starting to stereotype, if you actually have been to Northern parts of China you would know they are rapidly developing and growing in terms of technology, eg bullet trains in Shanghai, etc. I mean if you google Shanghai and actually look at some of the images you would see a definition of technology. I agree with the debatable democracies part. But I am liking your arguement on the NATO part, that countries do not need to necessarly need to join then become 1st World countries. Especially South Korea and Hong Kong.( Seong0980 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC) )

But yes China in general is only 2nd world, there is still porverty.

But as I have stated before, I have seen the sources provided by you guys from the websites (scroll up, I'm too tired to), it would seem in the Asian region, I would have to stick to the top 3 being Hong Kong SAR, Japan, and Singapore. Since Singapore is higher than South Korea in economic growth in the HDI wepage given earlier on (again scroll up, I'm too tired).

( Seong0980 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC) )

It is not stereotyping. Certain parts of the developing world have high HDI, including certain parts of China, India, most of South Korea, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and South Africa. But we are talking about whole countries, not just parts of countries. And by the way, I never attacked China's technological or capitalistic development, I simply said that the claim that they are a democracy (as in the political system) is debatable.
You don't need to tell me about China. I've been, and I've been to HK, and Japan, and most of the countries being discussed here. Lectures are not needed.
But my point remains that there is no standard, sourced and reference definition of what constitutes a first world country in the article, and that the rankings being used to draw examples from are incomplete at best. Even countries with high HDI may not be first world because they may lack political freedom, or high technological standards (the article doesn't state weather ingrown technology or imported technology is considered). China is one of the largest economies in the world, but that doesn't make it first world by itself. See my point?
And worse yet, this definition (democratic capitalistic, technologically advanced nation with high standard of living) is not sourced and is arbitrary at best. We need to first find a sourced and referenced definition of First World.
Hari Seldon 05:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Requote "But yes China in general is only 2nd world, there is still porverty." I'm not leceturing you infact half of the time I'm agreeing with you (always look in the bright side). And I never said China was 1st world. See my point? Respect. And I agree with your sourcing. ( Seong0980 05:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC) )

More precisely, China is a NIC. I am sorry if I over-reacted. I am an editor in Mexico and the edit war there is driving me insane. (Anyone care to help moderate it?).
I'll look for sources tomorrow. Lets make this article better!
Hari Seldon 05:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The article currently says "The term "First World" refers to countries that are capitalist democracies..." as though this were a clear and objective measure. The reality is more like "the term "First World" is used by capitalist self-described-democracies to refer to themselves". How do we go about making this more NPOV, without throwing in our endorsement of the term to mean what only certain groups claim it means? — coelacan talk — 12:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Capitalism can be measured in the degree of economic freedom. Democracy is very simple: a form of government that allows citizens to change their governors through vote or a similar empowering process, with checks and balances that assure the population that their decision is respected (i.e. rule of law, freedom of press, government accountability, etc...)
Still, before making the article more "NPOV", lets make it reference it more. It may be that reference quote other criteria for First World status.
Hari Seldon 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This map of the 1st World countries based on Human development and etc should get updated, mainly because of Hong Kong, a little blue dot would do if there are no objections. (Seong0980 09:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

I see it has been done, thanks. (Seong0980 22:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Actually it is still grey, could I edit it right away? (Seong0980 06:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

If the image is public domain, I don't see why not... Hari Seldon 08:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Done, I hope no one disagrees? :D. (Seong0980 05:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

The Argentine is Capitalist,with a HDI of 8,63,4th at America & 1st at S.A. and democratic

Colour Blind issue

There is a problem here, if you are actually colourblind you could actually get confused with red and green. For example, I turned the image into Grayscale in Photoshop (to feel colourblindness) and you could get dark grey and semi dark grey confused as one. Here, have a look at the original: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Colourblind.jpg

The only way to counter this problem is if you change the green for the 1st world, into a darker green: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Colourblind3.jpg

The un colourblind version of the improved image would look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Colourblind_imp.jpg

Basically, Colourblind3 is the colourblined version of Colourblind_imp.

I need a pertition to allow this colourblind image change. Sign your name to let me know you like the new one better. (Seong0980 09:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

Posting the Wrong Map

There seems to be a user who keeps posting a map that shows Turkey and South Africa as first world countries. Now I have never seen any organization stating this, nor did I ever know that Turkey and South Africa two countries with medium HDI and per capita income were considered first world (aka developed countries). In fact, there are many other countries widely considered developing, which are far more developed that these two countries.

Turkey and SA belong to the first world

1. Hello Mr. Loustinianou: the person who decided to add the map was - not me - but Chulk90. However, he was right. Really, Turkey and SA should probably be best regarded as developing countries (although they are considered to be "developed countries" by the CIA). However, The topic is not developed countries, but "first world". there are some developing countries (like Turkey and SA) which do belong to the first world, in spite of their being developing, since the definition of "first world" depends - not on development - but on a more historical background of the cold war between the USA and her allies (regarded as "first world"), versus the Soviet Union and the communist allies (regarded as the "second world").

By the way, the CIA considers Turkey and SA as "developed countries", but this is not the reason wherefore they belong to the first world. 83.130.228.127 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

South Africa is a well developed country which resembles many first world countries in terms of infrastructure (financial,roads,medical etc) BUT a relatively large proportion of the population still live in RELATIVE poverty. Relative being emphasised because there is a substantial amount of people who are extremely wealthy. Because of the presence of large sections of poverty it would be somewhat more accurate to call South Africa a developing country. Also if the presence of poverty prevented a country from being considered developed then the United States, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Greece would all not fit into 'developed' country category because all these nations have substantial poverty.
Hi, you, whose IP is 89.100.201.181, why don't you sign your name?
Regarding SA, most of the int'l organizations (except [e.g.] for the CIA) consider SA to be developing, because "developed country" is (roughly) defined as a country of which the HDI is above 0.9 (PS: this is only a "rough" definition because Slovenia's HDI is above 0.9 although it's considered to be developing, and some economists suggest to update Slovenia's status).Eliko 09:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This article fails to address the historical roots of the 1st-3rd world designations as they were defined in the French Revolution. As a consequence, it fails to include the intended empowering intent of the reference by Sartre and other French philosophers who used the term with reference to nations held under colonial influence who were claiming revolution as their solution to independence. While it has devolved from being a term of power to a term of qualification, its roots are important to know to best understand why it was brought back into national discourse when it was. More depth is needed in this article. 207.161.59.161 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"The term "First World" refers to countries that are capitalist democracies, which are technologically advanced, and whose citizens have a high standard of living."

This sentence implies that democracy are capitalists, which is nosense. Sweden, France, UK, Norway, Italy, etc... all theses countries had socialist government at some stage, and they were democracies as well. Anyway, the whole page is controversial. It should be "some people use the term "First World" to refer to..." ; "other to refer to...".

Mexico

Mexico and South Africa deserve to be a First World country. Also Laos belongs to the Second World. And depending on the time, Cambodia, Angola, and various other countries deserve to be Second World.

I don't know.. In the article isn't said X is in the 1st world, Y is in the 2nd world, etc... And by what criteria do you say Mexico and South Africa "deserve to be" First World countries? Some people think all EU countries are 1st World countries, some people don't. You can see up, an explanation in the section "South Africa, 3rd World?" --Mocu 20:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan

The map for 'high income country' marks Taiwan blue but it is not found in the textual listing.

hong kong

hong kong is not included on the map. during the cold war was it a first, second or third world country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinum inc (talk • contribs) 14:02, August 24, 2007 (UTC)


First World Problems

This is an end run around this AfD which is being discussed here. It's not very important or encyclopedic. Currently one of the references is to urban dictionary, which is obviously not a reliable source; the other one is a little better, but really, why should any reader care about this? Adding information about your pet memes to Wikipedia like this is basically the same as creating an article about your garage band. I'm going to delete this, and hopefully others will follow suit when it's inevitably readded.--Singleuse 22:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


regarding first world problems: first of all, the NPR source is perfectly valid. how many garage bands have an NPR article written about them? a google search will show that "first world problems" is not just a pet meme, but a common one. an article in the virginia cavalier daily covered this. there was a book published on this issue: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780767916035&z=y the new york times book review discussed this issue. how many garage bands get a widely read book and new york times article written about them? it never should have been deleted in the first place; this was the work of overbearing admins who refused to open their minds. let it stay here as the small but significant footnote to history it currently is. if wikipedia can have absurd lengthy articles about the early years of voltron, it can support something thats become a common part of young people's lexicon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.223.82 (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Last Map

I don't understand this map. What makes Mexico a first world country while China is second world. Also, how come South Africa and Brazil are third world despite being the countries with the highest Per Capita GDPs on their continents. I also question the 'worlds' listed for North Korea(should be 3rd), Egypt(should be 2nd), Nepal(should be 3rd) and Iran(should be 2nd). It seems to show North Korea as having better human development then Iran (that's funny, actually, NK has the lowest HDI in Asia and is pretty far down there in the world). FinalWish 02:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case, based on what the 'Worlds' system is really supposed to mean, it should be like this: /media/wikipedia/commons/a/af/World_Bank_income_groups.png . With Blue being first world, green and purple second world, and red Third World. FinalWish 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:First world blue second world green third world red.png

Image:First world blue second world green third world red.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The location of map from the Cold War

The map from the Cold War should be placed below the actual one. Now it seems that Central European countries are still in the Second World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.120.13.104 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this map really correct?

/media/wikipedia/commons/a/af/World_Bank_income_groups.png

Doesnt this map, according to income, denotes that countries like Mexico, Brazil and some from Africa are Second World countries? (Green) --190.20.83.76 (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Second world" is a term that has gone out of use since the fall of the Soviet Union. It has nothing to do with average income, country development or living standards. See Second World for a more clear explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbw01f (talk • contribs) 07:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't Poland part of the first world zone?

Poland has more then 11,116 per capita. Do you guys not think we should revise this and add Poland to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powertranz (talk • contribs) 17:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


I was wondering the same thing (Poland).--67.142.130.29 (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Turkey

Since when is Turkey a first world country ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.48.161 (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Style, grammar, etc.

I tried to clean up the style and grammar here - this article has some pretty bad writing and no citations. I'm not going to argue about any of the edits. Revert if you want. - Special-T (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the edits were really good, I only reverted the ones that change the nuance. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Adoption for a Educational Assignment/ Research and Development Plan

We are adopting this article for a educational assignment for our sociology course! Rgg6 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A preliminary plan for our assignment:

1.Overall Information

Definition of a first world country
GDP, GNP, prosperity – other number based quantities

2.Three World Model [Ragini]

"*"

"*" NOTE- this part talks about relationships more presently - I do not know if this should go here with past relationships or maybe in its own section that might be called - "Current Relationship between the First World and the other worlds". Rgg6 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC) 3.First World pre 1914 4.First World post 1914

Outline Posted By: Rgg6 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC) / Recent Changes Section Edited By: JFA7 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

@JFA - one thing that was mentioned when we got our article approved was to make sure when we talk about pros/cons under globalization we are linking it to first world and not going off onto a tangent...just throwing that out there. Rgg6 (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

High income economies

I think that the section "High income economies" should be removed. This was a cold war term, and since the fall of communism is redundant (as there is now no second word). To confuse the term with grouping such as "developed nations" and "developing nations" does not improve this article. -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:High income economy#First World.[4] -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

SOC 0317 Discussion

Hello guys (group members), just trying to get in the habit of using the talk page more often instead of e-mail. I am also having some trouble with research because the "pre 1914 First World" is somewhat of a up in the air concept of academia. I know we can still find information and probably do a good job, but I would be more comfortable with a more definite topic. If anyone else is having similiar issues please let me know. And if you think it would be better to switch topics, I think we should discuss it at our next meeting. Ok hopefully I will talk to you all soon.

Kmm131 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


Its Katie here again. After doing more research on the topic I am not so sure about doing the First World. It is not that there is a lack of information, but the information is not necessarily reliable and it is constantly changing. Countries' GNPs are always changing and you cannot definitely classify every country as "in" or "out" of the First World category. Additionally, there is no constant definition. Yes, the IMF and World Bank list countries by income, but that does not make the high ones First World. Where are the cuttoffs? We as a group obviiously can't decide that.

It is not that I do not want to do the work, I just think it will be hard to make this article of good status because of all of the unknowns; especially in the "history" section. The term hasn't reallly been used until recently, and was probably not originated until after WWII. Tell me what you guys think. Kmm131 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Everyone,

In response to Kate's request to change topics - I don't know if that's possible at this point. Now that Piotr wants a specific play by play of what we'e going to do, I think we're kinda (for lack of better words) stuck. Maybe we talk about this more at our meeting on Wednesday? Until then, I think we each should try and edit our portion of the outline to the best we can. JFA7 (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry that much about a list of which countries are in the First World, although if you find reliable lists you can cite them. If they differ that's fine, as long as they are reliably cited.
Same holds true for multiple definitions. You can select some that seem most reliable, cite them all, and use them as the basis for lead section of the article.
If the term is recent, that's fine, you can discuss how it was developed post-WWII. You can also discuss briefly if similar terms were used earlier.
If you decide you want to switch topics, you can do so, but I think you should be able to work on this one without much problems. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
@Kate - I forgot that Jessica and I discussed this the day you weren't there, but since First World didn't really exist as a concept until after WWII, we thought that either a) we don't discuss that or b) we do some research and extrapolate the definition later to countries before [i.e. the top countries economically or something before WWII would be [by inference] the first world of that time. Rgg6 (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same things actually, to apply the modern day standards of "the first world" to the pre 1914 countries. Ok sounds good. I will see you guys at the meeting today. Kmm131 (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_World/Archive_1&oldid=1089887460"