Talk:Third World/Archive/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Help, can someone restore the link to the reggae band?

Contents

[edit] More Imprecise information

As is stated below, the former wording seems to have incorrectly included Brazil, and since then the sentence seems to have been modified to include India instead. It is farcical to posit that China & India were Cheryl Bowman's possessive 'strongly aligned'. India and the Sviet Union were 'friendly' but even that wasn't an alliance. And India and China fought a war against each other.

[edit] Imprecise information

The author of this text says:

"Today, however, the term is frequently used to denote nations with a low UN Human Development Index (HDI), independent of their political status (meaning that the PRC, Russia and Brazil, all of which were very strongly aligned during the Cold War, are often termed third world)."

It is not entirely correct to say that Brazil was aligned with any bloc during the Cold War. According to major historians of Brazilian international relations, such as Amado Luiz Cervo and Clodoaldo Bueno (História da Política Exterior do Brasil, Brasília: Ed. UnB, 2002), from 1822 (Independence) until 1889 (Proclamation of the Republic), Brazil's alignment was mainly with the United Kingdom, although its commerce was increasingly large with the United States, to whom it exported most of its coffee (which, by then, was the country's main export item); the Proclamation of the Republic marked Brazil's alignment with the United States, initially almost automatic, but shortly after several disagreements concerning hemespheric issues of integration arised; from 1930 until 1946, which coincides with Getúlio Vargas's first government and his nationalist dictatorial period, Brazil heavily promoted industrialization, and the country's foreign policy flerted with both fascist republics (Germany and Italy) and the United States, in an attempt to bargain the most benefits for the country from both sides; from 1942 until 1946, Brazil joined the United States in the war against Nazi Germany, supplying troops who fought in Italy and bases in its mainland territory and on the Atlantic island of Fernando de Noronha (near the conflict areas of northern Africa); when the first Vargas government ended, in 1946, there was a period of total alignment with the United States (with heavy anti-communist content, in line with Cold War concerns) during the Eurico Gaspar Dutra government; in Vargas's second term (this time elected), Brazil distanced itself from the United States, adopting nationalist policies internally, which were continued and extended in the following governments, of Juscelino Kubitscheck (1954-1960), Jânio Quadros (1960 until he renounced, seven months later), and João Goulart (1961-1964). During the Kubitscheck government, an initiative which is particularly important was the Pan-American Operation (whose Portuguese acronym is OPA), which called for an economic aid program similar to the Marshall Plan for Latin America, alerting that there were risks of communist insurgencies in the continent resulting from poverty (these alerts were ignored by Washington until 1959, when the Cuban Revolution occurred, then leading president Kennedy to create the Alliance for Progress agenda, with concerns similar to those of OPA, but which attempted to link the granting of aid to the adoption, by Latin American nations, of policies which benefitted the U.S.); the Jânio Quadros and João Goulart governments are known for their "Independent Foreign Policy," with the word "independent" used in reference to non-alignment with the United States; in this period, Brazil restablished relations with the communist bloc, expanded its contacts with Africa and other poor or developing nations, adopting a stand which is similar to that of the Non-Aligned Movement (though Brazil was never officially a member of this group); the military coup of 1964 marked Brazil's realignment with the United States, but this policy lasted only from 1964 until 1967, during the Humberto Castello Branco government; it was a period in which Brazil cut relations with Cuba, supported the United States' intervention in the Dominican Republic (1965) to bring down a left-wing government, and readjusted its economy to allow the entrance of foreign capital; from 1967 until 1985, during the dictatorial governments of generals Artur da Costa e Silva, Emílio Garrastazu Médici, Ernesto Geisel, and João Baptista Figueiredo, Brazil returned to an independent and nationalist foreign policy, having restablished relations with communist countries and expanded contacts in Africa; the country's return to democracy, in 1985, coincides with the economic crisis years after the second Petroleum crisis, with all developing nations facing hardship as a result of high indebtedness, but the country's independent and nationalist policies continued, in this new scenario, until 1990, surviving the civil government of José Sarney; the first elected president of the democratic period (Fernando Collor de Mello) took office in 1990 and was impeached in 1992 (under corruption charges); he inaugurated a neoliberal period in which closer ties with the United States existed, but never with a direct and automatic alignment on all issues; the governments of Itamar Franco (1992-1994) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1994-2002) continued market reforms in Brazil, but did not align the country automatically to the United States; the current president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, maintains the same basic lines of action of Itamar and FHC, but with stronger emphasis on an independent policy and on strengthening ties with other developing nations.

It is not true, therefore, that Brazil was automatically aligned with the U.S. during the Cold War. Brazil lived the largest portion of the 20th century under nationalist developmentalist policies, which searched for independence from any bloc.

To say Brazil was aligned with the Soviet Union and the PRC is ridiculous. The Coup in 1964 was justified partly by anti-communism, but also because of very high inflation and economic instability. The resulting dictatorship was pro-American and anti-Communist, and the CIA was probably involved in the coup. The dictatorship only ended in the 1980s, and even so the center-right was in power until 2003, so I have no idea how anyone could say Brazil was pro-communist.


[edit] Top

What are the First and Second Worlds, then? If the First World was mainly Western Europe and America, was the Second World the Communist bloc or some intermediately industrialized group of countries?

Yes, that's exactly what it was. This is really a Cold War term.
I don't think the article makes it plain that 'Third World' was originally supposed to be a positive term and eventually became a perjorative as its 'membership' descended further and further into chaos. I think it would be educational to see the progression of the term and the events (and ideologies) related to its decline.

I think that's a problem with the term itself, not with the explanation of it. I've never heard mention of a "first" or "second" world either. --KQ

All my life the world has been divided in "First" and "Third" (I'm from Argentina born in the late 1970s). Only yuppies say "Nations in Development" or euphemisms like that. When you talk about something that is wrong in Argentina (or Chile, or Uruguay, or whatever) you say: "well, ehat you expect from this Third World country?" When you come back from Europe, you say "people live well in the First World" or "there in the First World they don't care about us". I'm in Israel now, that I call in a kind of joke a "First and Half World country" (or 3/4).--horzer 05:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
could somebody who has access to the OED look these terms up specifically to find the origin/first use sorts of stuff? Because, I lived in the US as an adult through a great deal of the Cold War, and "Third World" was a term, First and Second Worlds was never used as a term, and also, contrary to this article, Third World had nothing to do with Cold War alignment: as Truman might have said, "some of those bastards were our bastards, some were theirs". And in response to people who google for it, sure, I'm happy to include First and Second World articles, but I'd like to see reference made to when these terms were coined and who used them. The web didn't exist during the Cold War, and I never saw those terms.
OED does not contain "First World" or "Second World" except in the entry for "Third World", see below.. It's first print reference to "Third World" is 1956 G. Balandier, quoting A. Sauvry's term. Some more quotes:
1956 G. Balandier Tiers Monde 369 La conférence tenue à Bandoeng en avril 1955, par les délégués de vingt-neuf nations asiatiques et africaines+manifeste l'accès, au premier plan de la scène politique internationale, de ces peuples qui constituent un ‘Tiers Monde’ entre les deux ‘blocs’, selon l'expression d'A. Sauvy.] 1963 Economist 26 Oct. 353/1 Relations between Europe and the third world nowadays. 1964 Ibid. 18 Jan. 178/2 The ingredients common to most ‘third world’ countries (poverty, ignorance, love-hate of the former colonial powers). 1967 A. A. Mazrui in Jrnl. of Politics XXIX. 792 The concept of the Third World in the sense of the economically underprivileged sector of mankind must include Latin America, as well as the Asian-African countries. But in this paper we use the word, ‘the Third World’ in a more restrictive sense, meaning the world of the new states. 1969 Wall St. Jrnl. 15 May 14/2 By ‘Third world’ students Jerry means Orientals, Latins and American Indians. 1970 D. Caute Fanon v. 65 The ‘Third World’+means ‘positive neutralism’ and ‘non-alignment’ between the Western and Soviet camps. 1974 Globe & Mail (Toronto) 29 Jan. 13/1 The First World Development was Capitalist.+ The Second World was Communism, in particular Russian Communism. The Third World takes in all the other countries that are not developed. Everyone counts China in the Third World.+ It includes the whole of Africa, Asia, Latin America. It has to do with income and low standard of living and so this takes in such countries as Greece, Yugoslavia, and some include Spain and Portugal. 1978 Poland May 1/2 You will find statements and articles written by Poles, people from other socialist and from capitalist countries as well as from the countries of the Third World. 1978 Listener 14 Sept. 322/1 The long ride into town underlines just how Third World, poor and underdeveloped Vietnam still is. 1980 Times 6 May 12/8 Andalusia, often described as Spain's ‘third world’, with its high crime rate and unemployment. MickWest 21:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Oops, OED does have a "Second World" entry, hidden away -
Second World [after Third World], (a) (following the outlook of the Chinese leadership) the developed countries apart from the two ‘superpowers’; (b) (poss. reflecting the orig. implication of the term Third World) the Communist bloc;
1974 Times 13 Apr. 5/7 Mr Teng announced that the ‘socialist camp’ no longer existed, and that the planet was divided into the First World, consisting of the two superpowers, the *Second World, consisting of the other developed countries, and the Third World, which included the developing countries. 1974 Economist 18 May 66/1 The conventional image of recent years has been of a first world of developed market economies, a second world of ‘socialist’ states, and the ‘third world’ of the developing nations. 1975 Time 8 Sept. (Canada ed.) 20/2 The ‘Second World’ of the Socialist countries will make a show of complete support. 1978 Church Times 25 Aug. 4/2 The scene was dominated by the post-war tension between the First and Second Worlds. 1979 Dædalus Spring 124 In this approach, Europe would be seen as playing the role of what Chinese diplomacy likes to refer to as ‘the second world’. 1980 Sci. Amer. Sept. 107/2 The already industrialized countries of the capitalist and communist blocs (respectively the ‘first world’ and ‘second world’).
So that's interesting. "Second World" has two meanings. MickWest 21:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on--of course you have heard the term "first world" as in first world nations. --LMS

Um, well, no. Sorry. --KQ

Then what exactly did you think the S1W (of Public Enemy fame) were eponymous of? I mean, if Professor Griff ("Is it a coincidence that jews run the jewellery business?") had even heard of it then really there's no excuse for your ignorance! 202.142.214.9 06:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, now you have!  :-) Follow that Google link. I think Lee can tell you what the name for the way the word "first world" was coined... --LMS

I'm not sure there is a word for this case. It's kind of like a "back-formation", where an original word that looks derived or inflected causes the coinage of the presumed uninflected form, the way "pea" was coined from "pease". The term "third world" came first, then "first world" (which I have indeed heard in news reporting and such, though I've never heard "second") was coined by analogy. --LDC

I always believed the original distinction was "Old World" (Europe/Asia), "New World" (Americas) and "Third World" (everywhere else), and the first/second thing came (much) later, I can't back this up with evidence, though. GWO

Seems wrong, as the Third World is split between the Old and New.
This is only wrong if you are using the modern usage of 'undeveloped/developing country' to mean Third World when you categorizing your countries. It does not necessarily mean that the original meaning wasn't every other country outside the 'Old' and 'New' worlds. This explaination fits very well with the only colloquial use of the term 'First World' and the fact 'Second World' is unheard of (apart from on Wikipedia). I can't believe someone has bothered to create an entry for a term no one has ever used.

A columnist recently wrote:

Modifying the meaning of the term "Third World," which originally described the poor nations not aligned with the United States or Soviet Union, Buchanan defines it as pretty much any non-white nation, no matter how wealthy (say, Hong Kong) or how Western (think: Catholic, Spanish-speaking Latin America).[1]

Ed Poor, Wednesday, April 10, 2002

It makes no sense: to consider Latin America non-white, we would have to consider Spain as non-white and, therefore, in the third world.User:Marco Neves
This should really be considered only a Cold War term.

The term has, I believe, gone out of use since the 1970s. It is a indicator of development that has been replaced with DCs (Developed Countries), LDCs (Less Developed Countries - the Third World), NICs (Newly Industrialized Countries) and some other terms which I don't remember. There is a joke that when LDCs object to being called LDCs they will be renamed HRRCs (Human Resource Rich Coutries), that is over-populated and poor.

Yes, it has been replaced with developing nation versus developed nation, or South versus North. Another term is "human capital exporter" (no one goes *to* these countries only *from* them).

Since there is obviously some dispute between this page and the developing countries page on which term is really politically correct I have at least cross referenced them BozMo(talk)

Prof Rogers and Dr Elworthy define the term majority world as the "80% of the population that is not part of the North Atlantic system". See Professor Paul Rogers and Dr. Scilla Elworthy, "The United States, Europe and the Majority World after September 11," ed. Oxford Research Group (London: ORG, 2001), p.3. Available from http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/sept11briefing.php beatriz 16:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of article

The fifth paragraph (as at 13.08.04 15:20 AEST) is sounding a little too much like democracy was the sole saviour of the third-world nations, while those that remained as they were or chose to adopt communism had no option but to fail economically. Perhaps a little re-wording, and clarification of the circumstances behind these events should be added.

I think that the claim that without the Cold War pressures, in some countries corrupt dictatorships were replaced by democracies which led to economic booms is just nonsense. Where did this happen? Yugoslavia? Albania? I'm removing the relevant para--XmarkX 04:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article and the Developing country article should be merged or at least have some sort of consultation with one another. They mean the same thing, the only difference is the origin of the words. -- --komencanto 2 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with the above post. What is commonly considered the 'Third World' is the same as those countries considered to be 'developing'. These two articles should not be separated. The problem lies, however, with the article on developing countries, which is hopelessly insensitive to current critical literature within development studies--Ove 19:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC).

some countries got into an even deeper "third world" status thanks to american democracy (first they stablished dictatorships all over, and once that the left-wing oposition was "neo-liberazed" or jusr pacified, THEN the democracies came). Countries like Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, most if not all of Africa suffered all of those things from Cold War (it amazes me that some people call it WW3 but reffering to it by just saying that the new hitler was the soviet block, thats a mayor chauvinism there)

[edit] Move request

Somebody please move this page to Third World, or either change the article references to world, uncapitalized. —Cantus…☎ 05:17, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Third world → Third World

The term is normally capitalised, but the target page has been edited so needs an admin to do it. Rd232 18:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) Ditto for First and Second and forth world. Rd232 18:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support all three. I will do it, unless someone opposes here in the nearest 24 hours. Mikkalai 20:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
Support. Neutralitytalk 21:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support all three. I can provide a little informaion on this, as I was involved in creating the mess. "Third world" has existed for an independent article for a long time. There was a redirect from "F&S world" =>"World" and "F&S World" =>"World" until the middle of October last year. The articles in the "F&S world" which replaced the redirect to the paragraph in World was not as detailed as the paragraph in World. As the subsection in the World article was not close to the top, the person who wrote the new article may not have realises the paragraph existed. (why don't redirects dynamically link to subsections in pages as they do if one manually clicks on them? Sigh!). So from October "Second world" and "Second World" contained different information as did "First world" and "First World". In December I copied the information from the World section into the "Second world" and redirected "Second World" =>"Second world". For consistency I did the same thing for "First [Ww]orld". I considered copying into "F&S World" but decided not to as the Third world page was already that way. Philip Baird Shearer 21:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Cburnett 21:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. ExplorerCDT 15:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third and Fourth Worlds

Since there isn't a unified article for "Fourth World", the usage of "Fourth World" to mean extremely poor agrarian countries with no industrial development, usually in Sub-Saharan Africa, as opposed to "Third World" countries that are developing some industry like India, needs to be worked into the "Third World" article. This seems to be rarer than the use of "Fourth World" to mean stateless indigenous nations, but does exist in some development literature.

To my knowledge, "Fourth World" most often refers to indigenous populations (or sometimes other oppressed minority groups) within countries (be they from the 'First World' or 'Third World')--Ove 19:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC).


That surprises me. I can't think of a single instance where I've seen "Fourth World" used in a serious publication where it meant that. The consensus has always seemed to be that it refers to failed states, Somalia being the poster child. ---

[edit] Good work

Just want to congratualte those of you who worked on this article. After reading so much crap on wikipedia, it's a breath of fresh air to read a nice article that actually reads like an encyclopedic entry. You guys have the tone just right. Good job!—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:27:48, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The map which was up here was removed for being "not NPOV". I think the article does need two maps - 1) showing the historic cold war -first/second/third, and 2) showing what are considered third world today, since many of the former 2nd world countries are now considered 3rd world. If I removed south africa, israel and s.e. europe would it be acceptable? since they probably should not go there Astrokey44 13:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would. SE Europe and Israel should definitely not be there, and while South Africa is under question, and is often considered Third world just because it is in Africa, I don't think it can really be considered Third world due to its income and development (though a majority of the population live in quite poor conditions). Ronline 10:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok I made the changes you wanted, and also I guess Mongolia should be 3rd world too. I also added Azerbaijan and Armenia, but not Georgia, think that would be where it should be divided. S. Africa kept as yellow because I checked google and there are alot of references to it being a 3rd and a 1st world country, or sometimes seen as 3rd world. China is the only other country that needs to be yellow here I guess, because it has the 2nd largest economy in the world and modern cities but poor countryside Astrokey44 12:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
China - yes, China is mostly considered third world, but in recent years people are starting to see the distinction, particularly since historically it has been Second World. So it should be yellow. So should Mongolia. As to the Caucasus, I don't know why Georgia shouldn't be included and the rest should. Personally, I would consider all the Caucasus to be third world, in terms of internet sources, they're usually considered "Transition economies", along with Central Asia. But Georgia isn't at all better off that Azerbaijan and Armenia (in fact, it's actually the poorest of the three). So, I would say these three should probably be yellow. Thanks, Ronline 04:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought Georgia was more of a western country, but the others had more in common with central asia. Mongolia is third world isnt it? Astrokey44 13:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Mongolia is Third World. Georgia is probably the westernmost of the Caucasus states in terms of culture, but in terms of development it is about equal to the others, if not slightly less developed. Ronline ✉ 06:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the HDI (Human Development Index) be considered in classifying a country as third world? For example, Mexico has a "High human development". I don't think it should be classified as third world.

[edit] WTF?

Two things. First, I always thought that most of Latin America was aligned with the US. Second off, they are 2nd World in terms of industry aren't they? Cameron Nedland

Possibly. The term isnt very fair, and which side Latin America was on during the cold war does not have much to do with them being considered 3rd world. Most of Africa and South and south east asia was also western-aligned but they are still considered 3rd world. ---- Astrokey44|talk 12:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relation between the Human development index and the term Third World

It is implied at the begining of the article that the current use of term third world is associated to the more quantitative HD index. However, my opinion is that one has to stress the subjective nature of (and oftentimes degradator;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;y meaning) Third World country has and not validate the use of Third World by associating it to the HD index. The two terms are not the same and are only loosely related. The whole Latin America is considered third world, however, looking at the HD index one sees that countries like Argentina, Chile or Costa Rica have HD indexes similar or even higher than some European countries considered not Third World (Poland, Hungary and even Russia). So I would argue that these countries are considered Third world only by association, and I conclude that Third World is effectivly a country-scale discriminatory labelling in many cases. I hope ths view can be somehow included in the article. HDI seems to have a dynamic character (a country can go up or down) however the Third World label seems to be more difficult to change, more evidence to the subjetivity of the term.

Rronda 03:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Difference between "tiers" and "troisième"

"Tiers monde means Third World in French, but in the sense of "one-third" -- it does not mean "third in rank" (which would be troisième monde)." [2]

I don't think that this is correct, because according to what you can find in a good french dictionary "tiers" and "troisième" mean the same and are doublets. I would like to know the source of this distinction in the text, because it does not make much sense to me if it means "one-third". What would be the difference in meaning? --Baikonur 16:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wrong map

Image:Map of states with medium or low HDI.png
100px

Argentina is not a third world country and the same with uruguay

You're probably right to an extent there. In fact, many people say that the three developed countries in the Southern Hemisphere are Australia, New Zealand and Argentina. However, particularly due to recent financial crisis in Argentina, the country is often considered a developing economy (i.e. not an advanced economy). The term Third World isn't exactly synonymous with the developing world. Would you have any sources to show that Argentina and Uruguay are not Third World? Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ive seen a few sources which suggest Argentina used to be a first world country but is now considered third world [3] -- Astrokey44|talk 10:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Chile is not a third world country yet here it's included on the map based on association as Rronda stated above. - Rudykog 20:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I updated the map to include Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Panama, Costa Rica, Turkey and some of the gulf states as sometimes considered third world -- Astrokey44|talk 01:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting to note the maps used at the other language wikipedias - this one is used by most which includes china, all of latin america, israel and south africa as third world. this one does not include china or central asia, and this one includes much less latin american countries, but includes russia, china, central asia, yugoslavia as third world but not the gulf states or israel -- Astrokey44|talk 02:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The Dutch map is quite interesting in that it doesn't actually define Third World countries, but HDI. So, from what I understand, red signifies middle-HDI countries, grey signifies high HDI and dark red shows low HDI. I think it's quite an inaccurate way of looking at it, and shouldn't really belong in a Third World article but rather in the HDI article. Astrokey - I think the map at Image:Third world countries map world 2.PNG now is great! The only thing I don't understand is the inclusion of Saudi Arabia as "sometimes Third World" and to an extent the Gulf States. I mean, Saudi Arabia has a high GDP per capita but is quite backward in development (even in terms of HDI) while the Central Asian American countries are nearly always considered Third World (although Costa Rica is lauded as a Central Asian American success story, but in the same way that Malaysia is seen as a Southeast Asian success story). Ronline ✉ 10:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I wasnt sure about Saudi Arabia, but just because it had been included in this article which was possibly not a third world country. I found some references saying that Panama and Costa Rica were sometimes seen as 1st world: Panama - [4], [5] Costa Rica - [6]. For NPOV its probably better to mark more of them as being possible 3rd world than definately 3rd world. -- Astrokey44|talk 11:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
On a similar note, it would also be better for NPOV purposes to also make some modifications in the other direction, so to speak, since the recognition of all/some of the Latin American countries mentioned as first world is not universal nor homogenous within their own populations (for example, there are opinion pieces in which Argentinians [sp?] consider that their country may be third world due to the recent economic crisis, which showed that social inequalities were far from being resolved). The links and information that you guys have provided also show that their classification as first world and/or third world is far from being an universal concensus worldwide (and their possible third world status is not only due to association). Juancarlos2004 19:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that - I just realised that in my rush I put Panama in Central Asia! Everywhere I wrote Central Asia above, I meant Central America :) Ronline ✉ 08:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem I knew what you meant :) -- Astrokey44|talk 15:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you changed Israel's color to yellow--even though Israel is as developed as most European countries. Could this be another thinly-veiled display of anti-Semitism? I wouldn't be surprised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.165.132.220 (talk • contribs) .

In Astrokey's map, which is the one shown in the article, Israel is not coloured yellow at all! It's grey (i.e. non Third World) just like Europe. The yellow territory is the West Bank/Palestinian Territories. The only map where Israel is shown as Third World is Image:Third world world map transparent.png, but this map colours in all members of the Non-Aligned Movement (i.e. Third World in the traditional bipolar political sense, not the current usage). This should be changed since Israel is not a member of NAM, as far as I know. Ronline ✉ 08:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thats right, Israel is shown as first world in the current map. Its actually Palestine which is yellow (which you only see when you download high version) I think I might put this whole third world issue up at requests for comment since it seems controversial. It would be nice to have a vote or something so we can settle which countries should be considered third world -- Astrokey44|talk 15:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Looking round for some other third world maps I found this which also includes Greenland, South Korea and Taiwan; this map which has what looks like South Africa, Egypt, Libya, Algeria and Burma as being "variable"; and this low quality map [7]. There was also this map of livestock in the developing world -- Astrokey44|talk 15:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting question.
  • About South Africa, it should definitely be third world. It is not significantly less poor than other southern African nations, and the only reason it used to be seen as 1st world, is because of apartheid. Boers undoubtedly lived (and live) in 1st world conditions, but the vast majority of the population, i.e. black Africans, more rarely did or do.
  • The Gulf is also tricky. Several Gulf countries have huge GNP/capita values and people are in no way poor; still, that's a relatively new phenomenon, and some aspects of 3rd world situation sometimes sticks - literacy, social structures, etc. This btw goes for more Arab countries than those.
  • If you haven't already, I suggest you go with more than one map, since there are many opinions on this, and to show that we are aware of the controversy. Arre 16:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Good suggestion. I'd also suggest adding descriptive text beside the different maps to explain the different standards by which one country might be included or excluded. Durova 00:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I previously commented on Israel (italized post). A vote sounds like a good idea. Please vote yes (third world; should be colored green), no (first world; should be colored gray), or maybe (hard to say; should be colored yellow).

  • Albania
  • Armenia
  • Argentina
  • Azerbaijan
  • Chile
  • China
  • Costa Rica
  • Georgia
  • Qatar
  • Moldova
  • Northern Africa
  • Oman
  • Saudi Arabia
  • South Africa
  • Uruguay

My vote:

  • Albania - no
  • Armenia - no
  • Argentina - no
  • Azerbaijan - no
  • Chile - maybe
  • China - maybe
  • Costa Rica - maybe
  • Georgia - no
  • Qatar - no
  • Moldova - no
  • Northern Africa - yes
  • Oman - yes
  • Saudi Arabia - yes
  • South Africa - maybe
  • Uruguay - maybe

If you're undecided about one, looking at its life expectancy, literacy rate, and total fertility rate might be helpful.

Israel and South Korea are unquestionably developed.

I think a more formal vote might be better which lists all the countries/areas in the world, rather than a small selection. I set one up as a userpage here: User:Astrokey44/Third World (using the same voting system that you suggested), but it could be moved to something like Talk:Third World/countries vote if it was thought worth having -- Astrokey44|talk 02:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for setting up the list. I'm voting there now. Ronline ✉ 08:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
ok no worries, Ive moved the page to make it a subpage of this talk page now. I hope this poll complies with Wikipedia:Straw polls and Wikipedia:Current surveys. are there any objections to the current format? -- Astrokey44|talk 09:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should this page Should be split?

I would argue that the Third World is an outmoded concept, associated with the non-aligned movement and the Cold War. The post-cold war stuff should be moved to a page - possibly titled the 'developing world'. This latter concept should certainly NOT be redirecting to 'Third World', which is now a minority term. Robdurbar 11:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

They are actually separate articles: Third World and Developing countries, since the terminology is slightly different. Ronline ✉ 00:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with you Robdurbar - Also 'Dependency Theory', while well written and seemingly valuable, really feels out of place. It makes no sense to conclude that the term Third World is 'obsolete & archaic' but then segway to socio-economic theories of interaction between developing and mature countries.

[edit] Geographic/social Bias

It is simply not our place as english-speaking editors to decide what constitutes "third world." First world, second world, and third world are arbitrary (and offensive) terms. The article should only explain how the saying has been used in the past.--Colle 21:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What he said Robdurbar 21:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrary, yes. But offensive? How so? Durova 08:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Some people might not like being told they live in a "third world" country. It is catagorization based on western ideals... you get the picture.--Colle 00:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
No I don't get the picture. That's PC speculation. Have you any source for it? Durova 20:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, it should take only one person's vote to move a country from First world to "sometimes" or from Third world to "sometimes" in the map. The meaning of "sometimes considered Third World" is not accurate. Think about the few days after the Katrina hurricane, would you agree on considering the US a Third World country at least from the perspective of what the stereotypical definition is ?. Wouldn´t that put the US in the ¨sometimes considered ..." category?. The article should stress these ambiguities instead of trying to patch them with a consensus.

Rronda 17:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed it (pov, original research, geographic bias)--Colle 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"The countries considered Third World are usually most of Central America (with the possible exception of Costa Rica and Panama), most of South America (with the possible exception of Southern Cone countries of Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay), the whole of Africa (with the possible exception of South Africa), the Middle East (except for Israel and possibly,Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar), South and Southeast Asia (except for South Korea, Taiwan, Japan,and Singapore), and the Pacific Islands (except for Australia and New Zealand).

While the former communist countries of the world were historically part of the Second World, their current classification is often uncertain. Some former-Communist countries, such as Slovenia, currently have high-income economies and a high human development index, and may therefore be considered First World. Others are classified as "transition economies" and are neither classified as First World or as Third World. Classifying the countries of Central Asia, as well as the People's Republic of China as Third World can be debatable as these countries are fast approaching middle income status."

I don't understand these comments that say Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Israel, South Korea, etc etc are not third world. If you look at various studies made by the UN, The Economist, Financial Times, etc the quality of life in many more countries considered third world is higher or similar than these countries. For example, Mexico has a higher quality of life (according to the Economist) than Argentina, Uruguay, South Africa, Poland, Israel and South Korea, and is only one spot under Chile in the rankings. Why would these countries be considered FW when Mexico has a higher standard of living, comparable GDP per capita, a much much larger economy, etc. I think there is a huge bias regarding the regions and race of the population with development. South Africa is developing quickly yes, but it is RIDICULOUS to consider ir a non-third world country, when Mexico is often considered one. I think people tend to consider Arg, Uru, Poland, Israel and South Africa FW countries because of their large white populations.

moving this section that was removed to talk page -- Astrokey44|talk 05:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I put back the map that had been removed a few edits ago because it seems to be a fairly accurate map. Of course, ideas of what makes up the 3rd world can never be anything but subjective, but I feel this map makes a decent compromise. What does everyone else think? Getagrip123 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

See above topic...


Well, again, the fact that what makes up the 3rd world can only be subjective, it's exactly the reason why there shouldn't be a map. Moreover, illustrating the concept "third world" with the HDI map is misleading. Human development index is an attempt to be objective, whereas Third world is on the contrary a common use definition, which is inaccurate at best. It will be better to illustrate the term Third world with quotations and references to people actually using the term in context (politics, humor, etc). This would also be interesting in more levels, for instance, to see how "third world" has been evolving historically. What is the matter with not having a map?

Rronda 04:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


I changed the caption of the HDI plot to "The UN Human Development Index is a quantitative index of development which some use as a proxy to define Third World. However, the definition of Third World does not have a quantitative basis (see text for more details)." I think this is a fair compromise between drawing a map of Third World (which many of us do not agree in doing) and removing it. The Human Development Index is a quantitative measure and for that reason can not be equivalent to Third World which.

Rronda 02:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on your discussion about maps (meta discussion)

As I understand your discussion your fundamental problem is (or was) the understanding of the term "Third World". I believe you would have a lot less discussion if you would differentiate between the terms "Third World" and "developing countries" respectively the actual political meaning of "Third World" from the 1950s and the contemporary colloquial meaning as a synonym for developing countries. If you do not differentiate between the two meanings you will never reach a consensus, because one part is using it in the first the other part in the latter meaning. However in your discussion about the maps you mainly use the colloquial meaning of the term. Due to the fact this article is about "Third World" it should mention the different meanings, but then focus on the original political meaning and for the colloquial meaning it should refer to the article "Developing country". The case that you do not find realiable sources about which state is to consider "Third World" today, is because of the fact that strictly speaking you use the wrong (colloquial) meaning of the term. In the political meaning the "Third World" were the states of the Non-Aligned_Movement. You could therefore use the Image:Map_Non-Aligned_Movement.png as a map in this article.

So if you want to classify developing countries you can't do this arbitrarily, but you have to base your classification on a certain systematic methodology. Therefore it is pretty much useless to vote about which country is to be considered a developing country (you use "Third World" in the discussion).

The term "developing country" isn't based on a certain systematic methodology, it is a very broad and not strict defined term, so that there are many different methodologies to classify developing countries. For example you can use GDP per capita as the World Bank does (LIC, MIC, LMIC, UMIC, HIC) or use the Human Development Index (HDI) as the UN does. However all this shouldn't be part of the article "Third World" but of the article "Developing country". On commons:Image talk:Third world world map transparent.png you can read a more in-depth and worth reading criticism about a certain map but the criticism also applies to any other map that isn't based on any logic or systematic methodology. That's why I proposed the deletion of these maps on commons as Astrokey44 noticed on the vote page. Best regards --Baikonur 17:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if perhaps this is not a more serious problem with this article which should really split all of its 'developing countires' content out to the relevant article and look at the historical Third World, from 1950-the eighties when it began to fall apart. Robdurbar 09:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


As I understand the discussion, I think there is a historical definition and also a modern definition which is the one that prevails in the current discourse. This is not only colloquial, in the sense that it is not exclusively used in conversation. A search in google news for "third world" gives about 4000 results. So the use of third world to mean poor countries is not strictly conversational, it permeates the media, the politics, the humor, etc. Developing country is actually an euphemism. It is so confusing that if we agree on classifying countries between developed and developing we risk leaving out of any classification countries like Congo or Cameroon which, at least according to the economic indexes, are going backwards.

[edit] Other terms

At various American universities, there has been a trend to refer to these nations as "less-wealthy nations" because "developing countries" implies that more-wealthy nations are "developed" and have no improvements of their own to make. Thus, it is fitting that this term be added to the list of alternate (and possibly more acceptable) descriptors of "Third World" nations.

[edit] This must be a mistake

"Perhaps the earliest use of such a ranking system to describe the peoples of Earth appears in studies of 'race' during the classic period of European imperialism. James M. Hobson, in his "The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization" (2004) discusses the 'civilizational league table' (employing categories such as 'racial colour', 'temperament', and 'climactic character'),"

Published in 2004? I don't think so. 148.177.129.212 13:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

could be a republishing. i know with essays books are usually referenced by most recent publish date --Astrokey44 09:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted that historical preface to the usual progressive/developmental/Cold War understandings of 'Third World' (etc). It does sound bizarre doesn't it? Have a look for yorself at Hobson's book, which (perhaps I should have made clearer) is a recent study of how Western imperialists used such 'scientific' (socio-biology) standards, as First (white) to Third (black) Worlds, to justify the occupation of 'other' people's territories and exploitation of their resources. I think it's important to include this, because similar 'objective' standards (developmental economics) are used today to rank countries, for (some would argue) similar reasons. Plus ca change, according to this view... Basically, I'm not trying to be 'political', and certainly not 'PC' (is that politically correct, or post-colonial - sorry, student joke, hohohaha). I think we need to take into account how such ranking systems work to order our world. A hint that the objective categories of today may look ridiculous tomorrow is thus welcome, no? I apologise for not floating the suggestion before editing the page. May I propose that we re-include it? (PS - here's a ref to Hobson's book: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521547245&ss=fro) 86.139.190.113 13:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I added this, it was reverted as Wandal-ism, but it's true...

Third World is also the European term used to mean the American continent (South and North), because it was the third discovered continent (by Europeans). However it's contemporary new American meaning confuses a lot of Europeans.

If its the third, what was the second continent? --Astrokey44 12:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
My ges iz that they considrd Asia and Afrika one continent and cald it the 2nd continent.Cameron Nedland 04:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
just realised it probably refers to Eurasia as 1, Africa as 2. but this is silly anyway since 'europeans' knew about northern africa for as long as they did western asia --Astrokey44 04:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's not. The numbers are not about discoveries. This meaning of "Third World" should be backed by citations and be mentioned as an ancient, deprecated meaning. --85.181.8.27 21:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new map

     Third World
     Third World

removed the map as it includes areas which are controversial such as eastern europe and does seem to be based on reliable sources, as per the previous discussion --Astrokey44 00:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also removed that map from developing country and its sister map from developed country. It is far too generalised and controversial for it to be in those articles. The inclusion of the former Eastern Bloc is particularly controversial, especially in the case of East Germany and Slovenia. East Germany does not exist as a political unit, and hence it can't be classified separately from the rest of Germany. Germany as a whole is developed. If we're into classifying subnational entities, then maybe Southern Italy should also be highlighted as developing, since it's GDP per capita is lower than that of East Germany. Slovenia is another case: it is a high-income net donor country that is clearly developed. Czechia is also a net donor. The rest of Eastern Europe is considered a developed region by the UN and hence should also not be included on that map. Ronline ✉ 09:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Even the new map includes almost all of the countries that appear as Second World in the map in that article. The caption for that image says that those countries are 'often considered' Second World, but the caption for the Third World map suggests that there isn't really any disagreement that all the countries included are Third World. I imagine there is a fair amount of variance in the use of these terms, but I think the two conflicting maps could confuse a reader. — TheJames 12:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. This is a highly controversial issue, I think we should continue using the Human Development map. AlexCovarrubias 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge First World, Second World and Third World?

All three of these articles seem to be very similar as the terms are closely tied. Would it make sense to merge all three into a single article? Pburka 22:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What would be the name of the merged article? ---Majestic- 22:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a good question. First, Second and Third Worlds? With redirects from the existing pages, obviously. I'm open to better suggestions. Pburka 23:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
"Developing & Developed Nations"? With redirects, of course. Regardless of the title, I think that combining the three would be too encompassing and lengthy. I know they all relate to one another, but each are so important that they require their own articles. Maybe the problem is the similarities between the articles. Perhaps we could have a seperate article that discusses the inter-connectivity of the Three Worlds? Just my two cents, feel free to disagree. 72.137.224.24 06:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I oppose. These may be similar terms, but certainly not the same. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 20:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mergers

Three worlds typology and Three Worlds Theory are histories of sorts for the concept of third world. I'm sure that at least one of those two could merge into the other, but perhaps they should all merge here, or there should be some sort of historical concepts of three worlds article or something. What do you think? Smmurphy(Talk) 17:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the merge to "Three-Worlds Theory", as it is a basic concept of Maoism and does not have much in common with the usage of "Third World". --85.181.8.27 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)