Talk:Third World/countries vote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vote to determine which countries are considered third world for a map for the article Third World. Vote opened on the 16th of January. Will be closed on the 6th of February (3 weeks)

For the vote you may want to consider these maps:

map1	map2	map3	map4
map5	HDI map	First World map	former Second World map
First/Second/Third/Fourth Worlds map

Also other maps of third world countries at external links here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] Figures which might be helpful: life expectancy, literacy rate, and total fertility rate

See also: Human Development Index, List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita

Note that this is not a vote for which areas should be seen as third world during the Cold War - as shown in here, but a vote for which parts of the world should currently be seen as third world.

Please vote yes (third world), no (first world), or maybe (hard to say/should be shown as sometimes seen as third world). Because there are 200 or so countries in the world, some countries have been grouped together for the purposes of clarity/convenience. If necessary further define for instance under the Gulf states heading you could write:

"No for Saudi Arabia, Yes for Kuwait, Maybe for others Username 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC) "

Sign vote with four tildes ~~~~ .

Or if you think all the region should be the same, write simply:

"Yes, Username 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC) "

Other comments or an explanation for your vote welcome. You can vote for as few or as many headings as you wish.

Canada, the United States, Western and Central Europe, Israel, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand are not listed because these areas are almost always considered First world. If you wish to vote for any of these areas, list them under "other areas"

Contents 1 Latin America 1.1 Argentina, Chile and Uruguay 1.2 Panama and Costa Rica 1.3 Latin America excluding Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Panama and Costa Rica 2 Africa 2.1 South Africa 2.2 Africa excluding South Africa 3 Asia 3.1 Gulf states - Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar 3.2 Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan) 3.3 Transcaucasus (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan) 3.4 China, Mongolia and North Korea 3.5 Palestine 3.6 Turkey 3.7 Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Oman, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia 3.8 Singapore, Taiwan 3.9 Israel and South Korea 4 Other areas 4.1 Oceania (Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji, other small island states) 4.2 Southern/south-eastern Europe (former Yugoslavia, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova) 4.3 Greenland 4.4 Russia and Eastern Europe (Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) 4.5 Other countries 5 No map 6 Use HDI map as well 7 comments 7.1 South Africa 8 Definitions 8.1 Proposed map? 9 Results 9.1 Yes 9.2 Maybe 9.3 No 9.4 Other questions 10 Deletion from commons 11 First World and Second World maps

[edit] Latin America

[edit] Argentina, Chile and Uruguay

• Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe -- Ronline ✉ 08:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe Arre 10:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe Bulldog123 12:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe —Nightstallion (?) 18:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe --Jusjih 08:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Definitely third world. It is political division, not about wealth.--Planemo 11:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panama and Costa Rica

• Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes (but would accept Maybe) Ronline ✉ 08:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe (CR one of LA's richest!) Arre 10:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe Bulldog123 12:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe —Nightstallion (?) 18:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe --Jusjih 08:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Definitely third world. It is political division, not about wealth.--Planemo 11:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin America excluding Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Panama and Costa Rica

• Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes -- Ronline ✉ 08:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe Arre 10:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Bulldog123 12:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• No""" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.202.46.170 (talk • contribs).
• Yes --Jusjih 08:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, but weak no for Cuba (Communist) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• No fo Cuba (naver was a third world and has HDI higher than Russia for example)--Planemo 11:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Africa

[edit] South Africa

• Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe -- Ronline ✉ 08:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes (the 14% white population may live in 1st world conditions, the rest most definitely do not)Arre 10:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe Bulldog123 12:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe —Nightstallion (?) 18:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Matbe --Jusjih 08:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak yes though PDIR citation below may exclude it, UN scheme and concomitant low GDP/HDI are grounds for inclusion. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe, you only hear about the 1st world conditions, but 3rd world conditions definetly exist. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yes I've been there, I've seen the "rich" bits and the poor bits. I have no doubt. Waggers 20:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Africa excluding South Africa

• Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Ronline ✉ 08:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes though I have doubts about Libya Arre 10:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Bulldog123 12:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Jusjih 08:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --196.43.104.206 10:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asia

[edit] Gulf states - Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar

• Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes (Third World is more than an income grouping; I agree that this could prove to be the most controversial part of the map) Ronline ✉ 08:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe Arre 10:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe per Ronline. Income grouping would make them a no, but as with my comment about RSA... I think it's the same deal. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• NO UAE has tons of oil production, an indoor skate park (in the desert) and monorails. If that isn't modern, I don't know what is! WikieZach 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Planemo 11:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan)

• Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Ronline ✉ 08:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe (leaning on yes) Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• No Despite being economically undeveloped, ex-Communist. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• No for Kazakhstan, Maybe for others.--Planemo 11:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transcaucasus (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan)

• No for Georgia, Yes for Azerbaijan and Armenia -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe for all of them (Georgia is no different to the others, despite the Rose Revolution) Ronline ✉ 08:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• No for Georgia and Armenia, Yes for Azerbaijan Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• No naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• No —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• No Despite being economically undeveloped, ex-Communist. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes only for Azerbaijan. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China, Mongolia and North Korea

• Maybe for China, Yes for Mongolia and N.Korea -- Astrokey44|talk 04:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes for all of them (China is still overwhelmingly considered Third World, even if this is somewhat undeserved. It also considers itself Third World). Ronline ✉ 08:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe for China and North Korea; Yes for Mongolia. Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe for China, Yes for Mongolia and North Korea
• Maybe for China, Yes for Mongolia and North Korea especially naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe for China, Yes for Mongolia and North Korea --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• No for China and North Korea: regardless of burgeoning economics in the former, they both remain Communist; ditto for Mongolia because it is ex-Communist (though economically, it is undeveloped). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• No, yes, no, respectively. PRK and CHN are still communist countries, and should be second world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjjsixsix (talk • contribs).
• No for North Korea (it is rather developed country), Maybe for China and Mongolia--Planemo 11:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestine

• Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes (Palestine is less developed than Jordan and Syria) -- Ronline ✉ 08:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe(not less developed than Jordan, but more occupied) Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes not an AIC. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey

• Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe -- Ronline ✉ 08:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• No Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• No naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• No —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes it should be excluded on the basis of mod/low GDP/HDI. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Oman, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia

• Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes -- Ronline ✉ 08:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

(*Maybe (A very wide category. Don't think Syria etc are significantly poorer than some countries in L. America?)Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

In Latin America, only Chile, Uruguay and Argentina are being considered, as well Costa Rica and Panama. Syria is less developed than these, but probably more developed than Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, etc. Ronline ✉ 00:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I change my vote to Yes. Arre 04:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, but weak no for Vietnam and Laos (Communist) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, many have obvious 1st world anemities, but not for most. No for Vietnam, current communist country. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• No for Vietnam did we forget what is "third world" by definition?--Planemo 11:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore, Taiwan

• No -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• No -- Ronline ✉ 08:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• No Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• No Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• No You can't possibly be serious... naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• No --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• No —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• No --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak yes To me, these are the most difficult. They are not AICs and the UN scheme below considers them 'developing' countries; however, their industrialised economic base and high GDP figures/HDI are arguable reasons to exclude them. As well, the political situation of Taiwan (as a 'province' of China') may necessitate exclusion. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• No and No -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• No. Singapore is more developed than some Western European countries. I would note that Taiwan is not a country and is not represented on the United Nations (regardless of whether we think it should be or not). Orderinchaos78 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel and South Korea

• Weak yes As with Taiwan and Singapore above (and despite the PDIR citation/UN map/proviso for Israel below), the UN variably considers these two countries to be in 'developing' regions. I'm mindful that, arguably, their industrialised economic base and high GDP figures/HDI are reasons to exclude them. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• No Both are advanced countries which are almost always seen as first world -- Astrokey44|talk 14:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong no - see Astrokey44. Arre 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• No and No - in developing regions, but not developing nations. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG NO Israel is friends with the US. Even with a screwed up governement, they're still pretty powerful. WikieZach 20:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong No Being "powerful" and "friends with the US" are the worst criteria ever, but both countries are advanced with high HDI. Both countries are strong in the telecommunications/computing fields and have large service industries. In fact, I can't think of any reason to call either of them "developing." nsandwich 23:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• No to both Both countries are advanced, developed nations with reliable industries. Orderinchaos78 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other areas

[edit] Oceania (Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji, other small island states)

• Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes -- Ronline ✉ 08:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes (although knows little about some of these) Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Bulldog123 12:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe —Nightstallion (?) 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes --Jusjih 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southern/south-eastern Europe (former Yugoslavia, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova)

• No -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• No -- Ronline ✉ 08:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe for Albania & Moldova; No for the others. (Former Yug: real name Serbia & Montenegro!) Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Former Yugoslavia refers to the entire area of the former Yugoslavia, not only Serbia and Montenegro but also Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Croatia and Slovenia. Ronline ✉ 00:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe for Albania, No for the others

What's the rationale for this vote? It looks pretty fishy to me. (Or did you mean that the others should not be considered Third World?) Ronline ✉ 00:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ron, I fixed it 69.165.132.220 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Ronline ✉ 11:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• No naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• No —Nightstallion (?) 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe --Jusjih 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• No despite being undeveloped economies, they are ex-Communist. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes for Albania nsandwich 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, why Albania in particular? Moldova, for example, is poorer and has a lower HDI (significantly) than Albania. Ronline ✉ 07:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing against Albania, I just don't know enough about the others to make any judgment regarding them :) nsandwich 07:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greenland

• What about Greenland? It is not an independent state, but you won't miss it on a map, and to the best of my knowledge, it is not better developed than, say, Qatar. This is a possible Maybe for me. Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Due to quite extensive grants by the Danish government, Greenland is quite developed, at least infrastructurally. It's true that there are a significant range of social problems on the island, and that indicators like life expectancy are lower than other First World countries. But since it's part of Denmark, even though it has home rule, it should be considered First World. Greenland is a unique case, though - Qatar is much more "metropolitan" and probably earns a similar income per capita, but in terms of social development may be behind Greenland. I would argue Greenland has the air of a first world country, particularly in regards to government and its actions. Ronline ✉ 00:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• in fact, qatar's GNP/capita is more than double that of greenland. Arre 02:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In 2004, Qatar has a GDP (PPP) per capita of $28,919 (slightly higher than the EU average). Greenland's GDP per capita was $20,000 in the same year according to the CIA World Factbook. So, the difference isn't as considerable. However, Greenland's standard of living is higher than its GDP per capita due to significant transfer payments from Denmark (one of the world's wealthiest countries, GDP per capita of $36,083 in 2006). Ronline ✉ 05:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

weird, i remember reading 16,000 for greenland, 39,000 for qatar (2005). that could be because of the oil spike though. anyway, i'm pretty much convinced to vote no now. good reasoning. Arre 10:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Greenlandic society, when analyzed as a seperate entity, is a "welfare state" an ranks highly on the HDI index (i.e. including other parameters than per capita income). //Big Adamsky 14:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• No vote here. I dont think greenland is usually considered third world. Maybe its a first world country by association in the same way that some south american countries are seen as third world by association -- Astrokey44|talk 02:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• No, per Ronline naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• No, really no more third world than Nunavut or remote parts of Alaska --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• No —Nightstallion (?) 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• No --Jusjih 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• No part of Denmark. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• No, Denmark is first world. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia and Eastern Europe (Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia)

• No -- Astrokey44|talk 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• No Arre 04:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• No (though this category is much too broad - Ukraine is considerably less developed than Czechia). Ronline ✉ 05:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• No --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  I probably have to second Ronline's comment; this is probably too broad. Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and the Baltics are pretty much "no" in my mind, but the other three are probably a "maybe". --Bletch 13:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe for Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, no for the others. —Nightstallion (?) 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• No, none of these are really anywhere close to somewhere like Africa, see List of countries by HDI naryathegreat | (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• No --Jusjih 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• No ex-Communist. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• No for all -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• No and it is Central and Eastern Europe.

And btw, the word "ex-Communist" doesn't provide any sensible information/categorisation about these countries. Pavel Vozenilek 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire; as cited – meaning with "prior-market planned economies/regimes". For added sense, and before evincing the opposite, please consult a dictionary. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe for Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, no for the others. (per Nightstallion) +Hexagon1 (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• No Second world is by definition former developed communist states, so it cannot be third world anyway. Question to Nightstallion: do you think Moldova is more developed than Ukraine?--Planemo 17:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other countries

[edit] No map

Too controversial so no map of the third world should be shown

• Against this option Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support the Third World is not a current concept; it does not exist; there should be no current map of it Robdurbar 11:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against this option Bulldog123 12:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against this option naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against this option Ronline ✉ 05:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against this option, use the HDI map --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The HDI map is quite misleading in this case. Firstly, because it has multiple "levels", whereas the Third World classification is basically binary. That is, there are either countries which are Third World, or those which aren't Third World (i.e. First World), and some countries who are disputed. In the HDI, however, you've got three categories - low, mid and high, and the mid category is disproportionately wide in comparison to the others. HDI is also much more objective and scientific, while Third World is mainly a "common usage" term (and the article should reflect that, even if the term itself is quite unfair). HDI shouldn't really be used when gauging whether a coutry is or isn't Third World. I think a Third World map, like the one Astrokey made, is most appropriate in this case. Ronline ✉ 11:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think both could be used. The HDI map is interesting for contrast, since it is, as you say, more scientific. Arre 11:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Against. —Nightstallion (?) 07:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against Agree with Bletch--Colle 07:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support: the Third World is too hazily defined as a concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs).
• Against a map: There's a lot of views and definitions of the Third world. Since they could not be represented by one map like Central Asia or Middle East, I suggest that many maps from important sources be shown (UN, CIA, EU...). CG 15:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against this option The term has some currency; such a map (current or prior) will clearly have to indicate sources and timeframe. Also see my commentary below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use HDI map as well

• I'm for using both the HDI map and a map showing common usage of the term. —Nightstallion (?) 18:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes It makes sense for contrast with a more scientific study naryathegreat | (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support for putting HDI map --Donar Reiskoffer 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• support. It would be good as long as it notes that it is one way to measure 3rd world, not the only measure. -- Astrokey44|talk 00:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support (belatedly!) I placed the HDI maps in the articles for developed and developing countries (with brief captions) without realising this poll was afoot. I'd support using this to help delineate countries in the First/Second/Third World, but perhaps not solely. Note that these terms were frequently used before the end of the Cold War and, thus, are somewhat of a misnomer in current usage and may lead to confusion. To that end, perhaps we should develop similar maps based on contemporaneous HDI/economic figures – i.e., for c. 1990 (I believe prior HDI figures are listed in the current HDI report) – and to categorise countries appropriately while being mindful of other authoritative definitions/distinctions.
• And as for countries that should currently be seen in the Third World – and currency of usage aside – we must resort to citing authoritative sources (e.g., UN?) for information and not pander to this-or-that choices about propriety (no matter how well-reasoned); I see little of that in the above. See below. For regions above, I will indicate choices and cite reasons why. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. Arre 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Probably the least controversial way to do it; whatever the first map is, it will seem subjective. Most NPOV. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. If it's possible, it should be the only map in the article. CG 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comments

• I think the distinction between Southeastern Europe and (far)-Eastern Europe is a bit arbitrary. Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova are the least developed parts of Europe, both in terms of economic indicators and democratic indicators. Southeastern Europe's Western Balkans (i.e. former Yugoslavia except Slovenia) are also a bit backward, but distinguishing them from Eastern Europe shouldn't be done. I don't think there's any reason why Southeastern Europe could be considered Third World while Eastern Europe shouldn't. Russia is sometimes considered Third World, at least by U.S. press, even though I think it should remain grey. Ronline ✉ 08:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on Russia (and China). The great power status of these countries, w. space flights & nukes, lead me away from third world status. Also, Russia is very well educated/literate/etc compared to any regular Third World nation. Countryside poverty may be high, but that's even worse in most of Latin America, where we've mostly gone with Maybe. Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• alright, I will add eastern europe and russia as a heading -- Astrokey44|talk 04:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Based on my votes/commentary, I believe map2 (the purple one) above best reflects my position; however, it may need to be tweaked (e.g., Cuba, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Vietnam ... ?). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• On such issues, we shouldn't compromise and use one map. When there is divergent opinions, the best way to reach NPOV is to include many maps from different sources, or merge these different sources into one map (see Middle East and Central Asia). CG 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Africa

What's going on with the maybe votes here? What could possibly make South Africa a first-world country, if there's doubt for Russian and the Balkans? All countries in Africa have first-world areas and neighbourhoods, coexisting with the abject poverty of the majority population, since both poverty and class divisions are very sharp. The only thing separating rich people in South Africa from rich people in the rest of Africa is that they are white. The post-Cold War conception of South Africa as a first world country is, in my view, based on a fundamentally racist outlook -- white people see white people, and they look happy enough. Arre 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

For our information, according to some trusty references:

• First World: the major industrialized, non-Communist nations of the world (RHWebColD)

As well, my Penguin Dictionary of International Relations (PDIR) indicates that these countries are coterminous with UN Advanced Industrial Countries (AICs) which include those in North America, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia/New Zealand

(The Wp article, BTW, appears to contain much uncited speculation and should be scrutinised/edited.)

• Second World: the former Communist block consisting of the Soviet Union and some countries in Eastern Europe (OED);

the Communist nations of the world (RHWebColD).

The PDIR also indicates these countries all but 'self-destructed' and doesn't have a distinct entry in that volume.

• Third World: the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The term originated with French commentators in the 1950s, who used tiers monde to distinguish the developing countries from the capitalist and Communist blocs. SEE developing country. (OERefD)

... which goes on to cite that (in addition to the above) that the World Bank defined a developing country as one having a per capita GNP of less than US$6,000 in 1988, or US$10,065 in 2004, etc.

According to the PDIR, China, while "[p]ossessing many of the attributes of the typical Third World state, ideology ruled [it] out of all (such) identification" (PDIR, p. 533) and, thus, was generally considered to belong in the Second World.

As well, Israel and South Africa were on the margin, "geographically and historically within the meaning of the term but nevertheless regarded as near pariahs on ideological grounds" (PDIR, p. 533).

Lastly, I direct everyone to a UN scheme that categorises all countries. I will make choices above based on these defs. I hope this helps everyone else, too. :) Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• The second world doesnt really exist anymore. Just because a country is ex-communist does not mean that it can not be considered Third world today (as you had for a reason for voting no several times above). Part of this dispute is over which former-second world countries should be seen as either first or third world. -- Astrokey44|talk 00:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "Really" doesn't cut it: this is your opinion. My point is that us deciding which countries belong to which groups, given the historical usage of these terms, might be inappropriate. And while other Wikipedians may also believe as you do (and I don't necessarily disagree either), can you or anyone cite authoritative sources to support this position? I don't see 'em above, and any assessments so derived might be supposition.
  • Conversely, the defs above do not obviate current usage of these terms (though usage of the Second World is admittedly deprecated) and imply the opposite. See here, for example. Usage is as much a matter of current and prior ideology as of history, location, and socioeconomic factors. For example: how objective is the assertion that nations in the Caucasus are or might be in the First World but those in Central Asia are not? They all have comparable (moderate) HDIs. As well, even the UN variably classifies all post-Soviet states as (1) developing or (2) neither developed nor developing (sound familiar?). To put it another way: if the question instead was which countries should be classified developed and developing, you'd get different answers. Perhaps even a simpler one: essentially, any country with an HDI of 0.9 or above is developed, others are developing.
  • Until authoritative information can be provided to clarify ambiguities regarding the First/Second/Third (Fourth?) Worlds or refute the above, Wikipedians should refrain from opining and my assessments – based on information above – are as valid as any. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I dont think there are any authoritive sources since the term Third World is vague, the same as other vague notions such as Eastern Europe, Far East, Oceania. The best thing we can have for a map is where it shows a "maybe" color for anything which is sometimes/not always seen as third world, similar to maps for such things as middle east, southern US etc. The Second World is a less commonly used term; even during the Cold War - see this reference from 1983 [7] which refers to the "Third World" peoples of Soviet Central asia -- Astrokey44|talk 12:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I mean, we should be able to prevail upon the works of political scientists and organisations (international relations), etc. to help guide us with this, no? For the other terms you've noted above, a dictionary or another authoritative work (like an atlas or gazetteer, and even the UN regarding subregions) can and has helped to guide matters. In the defs above, I have tried to do just that with reasons why. And your citation further demonstrates the ambiguity of the term: even the PDIR notes the ongoing parochialism of 'First World' nations towards others and, in Wp. We must strive to present a neutral point of view regarding this while not catering to opining.

Given the historical connotations of usage for First/Second/Third World, I see no difficulty in exhibiting, say, ex-Communist countries and current ones, or (conversely) countries reckoned to previously be of the Third World (not Communist) and those that are currently questionable (perhaps ex-Communist). I'll throw something together.

To that end, I would also support using different colours (through diagonals) for ambiguous countries. Given all of the above (and well aware of prevailing interpretations), take Taiwan, for instance: it's reckoned as industrialised (First), yet a 'renegade' province of China (Second), though not at all noted above or in traditionally reckoned UN lists for advanced industrialised countries (Third). (Remember, NPOV.)

In the end, I realise that you and other Wikipedians are making best efforts to clarify this ambiguous issue. If the vagaries remain, however, then perhaps we would be best served in leaving it at that? That is, include a map(s) whereby visitors can judge for themselves: include the traditional map (c. 1980) or variant and or include one whereby we can actually cite (and agree upon) a list of countries (as I've done here for the Second World) ... with explicit provisos. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OT: I got amused by your frequent use of word "ex-Communist country". It suggests that people in these countries define themseles in terms of communism/anti-comunism/post-communism/you-say-it. I can ensure you that even when communist parties hold all political power, practically no one there cared a little bit about political system. Possibility that the fallen system would have such defining effect two decades later feels absurd (to me). Pavel Vozenilek 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed map?

Hello again! For our collective efforts, I've created a map that I believe reflects the current situation regarding development. Notably:

• the Second World includes prior Warsaw Pact and the five current Communist countries, which (given their moderate HDIs and UN classifications) are variably reckoned as developed countries (except Slovenia, with a high HDI);
  • Similarly, as a conciliation, I qualify my 'no' votes above as maybes in the Third World if it can be demonstrated that the Second World is invalid today;
• the Fourth World includes LDCs;
• the First World are generally developed countries indicated (fully or partially) in UN stats or here;
• the Third World are those developing countries otherwise undepicted above.

I've indicated ambiguous countries through the use of diagonally coloured bands – namely the Second World countries (given currency of the term) and countries that aren't universally reckoned/noted as developed (Israel, South Korea, South Africa, Singapore). And then there's Taiwan (see above). Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is most inaccurate to clump all formerly-Communist countries into the Third World, since there is a vast discrepancy between states like Vietnam and, say, Czechia. I saw that you've placed Slovenia into the first world, yet none of the new EU member states. A lot of these states have HDIs that only very slightly below countries like Portugal and Greece, which are considered developed. In terms of GDP per capita, the difference is also negligible - see European Union#Standard of living, where Czech GDP per capita is higher than Portuguese, and Hungary, Estonia and Slovakia are only marginally lower. For that reason, classifying the EU-8 as "Third World" is not only inaccurate but does not reflect any current usage. The notion of a Second World, a "transition economy world", has become increasingly obsolete after the late 1990s (mind you, there were always huge discrepancies within the old Second World). The economies of Central Europe and to an extent Southeastern Europe have finished their transition, and are now free market economies of the same basic structure as Western European economies. More importantly for this classification, their income levels and overall development is comparable to that of Western Europe - i.e. there is no longer any large gap. Additionally, the UN classifies all of Europe as a developed region. For that reason, I think it's much more controversial if we create a map showing all three, or four, worlds simultaneously. It's much better to create a map that shows just the Third World for the Third World article, showing countries that are often considered Third World, as Astrokey's map does. Ronline ✉ 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Therein lies the difficulty. I realise the current deprecation of Second World et al., but my point is that we should not be using these ambiguous terms to delineate countries that are better described through terms that are more current and appropriate (e.g., developed/developing). Even the PDIR states (regarding continued usage of Third World): "[it is] difficult to justify in logic" and is a testament to the "enduring significance of Cold War ideological debates" (p. 533). That is: I think it's foolhardy to consider the terms First/Second/Third(/Fourth) World and developed/developing countries coterminous given the historic connotations of the former. Moreover, I see scant other citations of definitions and inclusions for the Third World as I've done above.

Regarding the EU countries in the former Warsaw Pact, I again reiterate the inconsistency of UN 'conventions' regarding developed countries – developed geographic region, yet not developed nor developing regarding trade – so these can variably be red and green or red and blue. And while some of these countries may conform to EU admission criteria, they are typically not in UN lists of AICs and EU inclusion does not necessarily make them so. As evidenced by their "marginally" lower HDIs and GDPs, which still lag, ex-Communist EU countries still have vestiges of those systems and have not made a complete transition to industrialised capitalism – one of the main caveats underlying usage, current and prior, of the term First World. Slovenia, formerly of Yugoslavia, has a markedly higher HDI now (hence red and blue). Perhaps these countries should be depicted as red and a shade of grey or similar?

I do take your point regarding including all 'Worlds' in one map, since definitions can and do vary. I merely did so to reflect one possible interpretation of all of them, ambiguously, in toto and 'logically' (as noted above). But little you've stated would compel me to change this perspective. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Europe and Russia are more often seen as first world. If you are going to do it this way it might be better to mark them the same way you have marked South Africa as 1st/2nd. Also it should include that Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Panama, Costa Rica, Turkey and the Gulf states are not always seen as third world (possibly a first/third mix). Some countries such as China have at times be seen as all three. 'Fourth world' is not used very much so all the fourth world countries should be marked as being both third/fourth. Taiwan should not be marked as 2nd, and South Korea should not be marked with 3rd. But I agree with Ronline that it complicates matters trying to depict all four worlds at once. -- Astrokey44|talk 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Again, "often" might be subjective. I used two shades of 'green' to hark of the unity of Third/Fourth World countries (i.e., the latter included in the former), but diagonals depicting the same might also be prudent. For other comments, see above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that finding sources is a problem with this, how about if there was a map which was *only* based on other maps of the third world at external sources such as the ones at the top of this page. You could have some regions marked as "showed as third world at all maps" and "showed as third world on most maps" and "showed as third world on some or one map" colours ? It would probably be a problem because it could never comprehensively cite every map ever done of the third world, but at least it would cite a few of them. -- Astrokey44|talk 04:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's authoritative and largely agreeable to editors here, that may work for me. Note that I've tried to reconcile definitions from reputable publications with the map above, but nothing is perfect. :) And any such map (methinks) should be accompanied by another – maybe a thumbnail of the HDI map. In any event, thanks for your engagements regarding this. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes its difficult to do without many good sources. Sorry for being picky with your map, I have had to change my third world map three times and have taken alot of criticism for them so I have gotten to know the topic fairly well. I like how you have shown the islands so you can see some of the smaller nations -- Astrokey44|talk 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand and know these challenges all too well. Besides, I'm trained in political science: what sane man would otherwise possess a dictionary concerning international relations? :)

I also hope I haven't derailed the vote per se, but merely want to highlight the importance of the "five pillars" before moving forward regarding Wp content ... which might also be slight reason for prior criticism? (Sourcing that criticism is another matter, however.)

As for the map, thanks! For your information/use: there exists a map template (delineating rationale for microstates) which is listed among the blank map templates. Enjoy! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this original research? I feel that the article would be better off using pre-existing maps, such as HDI. This creation is very pretty, yet I feel it is too subjective --As long as the earth exists, this kind of categorization will be debated. --Colle 03:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hence my concerns above: the map I created was a conciliatory effort based on definitions/citations from various sources and rationale (see above). But nothing's perfect. :)

Given the subjective nature of the term I'd opt for including a map, or recapitulation, from an authoritative source (either current or prior) and or the HDI map with caption/proviso (e.g., "The Third World, variably defined, may include countries that exhibit medium to low human development", etc.). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Results

This poll was set to close on the 6th of February has now finished. These are the results:

[edit] Yes

• Latin America excluding Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Panama and Costa Rica: Yes (9 to 3 other votes)
• Africa excluding South Africa: Yes (11 unanimous)
• Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan): Yes (8 yes, 1 no, 1 maybe)
• Yes for Azerbaijan (4 y, 3n, 2m)
• Yes for Mongolia (9 yes to 1 no); Yes for North Korea (7y, 2n, 1m)
• Palestine: Yes (7 yes to 2 maybe)
• Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Oman, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia: Yes (10 yes overrules 2 votes for Vietnam as No and 1 No for Laos)
• Oceania (Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji, other small island states): Yes (8 yes to 1maybe)

[edit] Maybe

• Argentina, Chile and Uruguay: Maybe (9 maybe to 1 yes)
• Panama and Costa Rica: Maybe (8 maybe to 2 yes)
• South Africa: Maybe (8 maybe to 3 yes)
• Gulf states - Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar: Maybe (6 maybe, 4 yes, 1 no)
• Maybe for China (5m, 3y, 2n);
• Turkey: Maybe (5m, 3n, 1y)

[edit] No

• No for Georgia (5n, 2m, 1y), No for Armenia (4 n, 2m, 2y)
• Singapore, Taiwan: No (9 yes to 1 no)
• Israel and South Korea: No (5 yes to 1 no)
• Southern/south-eastern Europe (former Yugoslavia, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova): No. Albania gets 2 maybes and 1 yes, Moldova 1 maybe, but still outweighed by No votes for all (5 no, 2 maybe)
• Greenland: No (7 no to 1 maybe)
• Russia and Eastern Europe (Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia): No (9 no for all, with 2 maybe for some)

[edit] Other questions

• No map: Against (8 against to 3 support)
• Use HDI map as well: Support (unanimous)

-- Astrokey44|talk 05:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just one thing I have about the results - it's irrational to put Azerbaijan as a Third World definite and Georgia and Armenia as a definite no. I don't know why people think otherwise, but the Caucasus is quite a homogenous area socio-economically, and should be put as "maybe Third World". Azerbaijan and Armenia are the best off economically of the three states (Azerbaijan in particularly is somewhat developed), while Georgia is the most socially-liberal (but the poorest). Azerbaijan is also following Turkey, and hence increasingly developing itself. Georgia is still unstable and poor, even though the revolution did achieve something in terms of democratic governance. But seeing Georgia as a *clear* exception is not the best idea. I don't mind if Georgia and Armenia are put as "No", but no-one has given an adequate explanation. Also, Azerbaijan got 5 votes for "no" or maybe, while only 4 votes for yes. So only a plurality think it should be a Third World definite. Otherwise, everything's OK. Ronline ✉ 12:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

They were very close, but I was listing them here purely by numbers. Azerbaijan could probably be moved to maybe under that rationale. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'll also reiterate that, given the varied nature of choices and comments above (present company included), that we should only include a map (based on one) from a reputable source. In absence of that, or perhaps in concert with it (as revealed in the vote), the HDI map should suffice and is unambiguous. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I think Astrokey's idea of having a discussion and poll on this was very good. There are very few reputable Third World maps out there, and the HDI really serves no purpose - it doesn't outline what countries are or are not Third World, unless we say that all low-HDI countries are Third World or something like that. I was just making a point about the interesting case of the Caucasus. Ronline ✉ 06:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I agree with all about the need for discussion and the utility of this poll. However, I'm merely reiterating the importance of citing reliable sources before moving forward: consensus aside, we cannot and should not present information based on subjective opining. If there are few sources upon which to base such a map (and I see little of that above), it may be prudent to not include one. And, in this instance, the HDI map may serve a more important function (and rather disagree with you on that point) ... particularly if it has a generic caption as suggested. That would at least enable visitors to make their own conclusions about Third World constituents, instead of us telling them what we think it is comprised of. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I came here as a result of a still-current RFC. As a complete outsider, I have to ask a basic question: Have you lost your minds? Deciding whether or not Argentina or Saudi Arabia is a "third world country" is not factual and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Countries can't be pigeonholed. The "second world" no longer exists. The term "third world" simply is not a point on a verifiable yardstick.

The HID map is not too bad, since it has at least the cachet of the organization most appropriate for making value judgments about the development level of the world's countries, and it realistically reflects gradations of human development. But deciding whether or not certain countries towards the center of some indeterminate scale are "third world" is at best a matter of opinion and does not merit publication in Wikipedia.

1. Masonbarge 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion from commons

The third world maps have been put up for deletion from commons here. I have decided to vote to delete since there are no reliable sources for these maps. -- Astrokey44|talk 13:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First World and Second World maps

Why in the First World map included only the most wealthy capitalist countries, while in the Second World map included all socialist countries regardless their wealth or poverty?--Planemo 22:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)