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 on wikimedia commons:

• map1
  map1
• map2
  map2
• 
  map3
• 
  map4
• map5
  map5
• 
  HDI map

Also other maps of third world countries at external links here: [1], [2], [3], [4] 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"

• Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe -- Ronline ✉ 08:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe Arre 10:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe Bulldog123 12:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe —Nightstallion (?) 18:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes (but would accept Maybe) Ronline ✉ 08:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe (CR one of LA's richest!) Arre 10:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe Bulldog123 12:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe —Nightstallion (?) 18:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes -- Ronline ✉ 08:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe Arre 10:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Bulldog123 12:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe -- Ronline ✉ 08:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes (the 14% white population may live in 1st world conditions, the rest most definitely do not)Arre 10:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe Bulldog123 12:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe —Nightstallion (?) 18:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Ronline ✉ 08:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes though I have doubts about Libya Arre 10:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Bulldog123 12:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Maybe Arre 10:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Ronline ✉ 08:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe (leaning on yes) Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No for Georgia, Yes for Azerbaijan and Armenia -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe for all of them (Georgia is no different to the others, despite the Rose Revolution) Ronline ✉ 08:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No for Georgia and Armenia, Yes for Azerbaijan Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe for China, Yes for Mongolia and N.Korea -- Astrokey44|talk 04:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Maybe for China and North Korea; Yes for Mongolia. Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Maybe for China, Yes for Mongolia and North Korea --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes (Palestine is less developed than Jordan and Syria) -- Ronline ✉ 08:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe(not less developed than Jordan, but more occupied) Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe -- Ronline ✉ 08:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

(*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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Yes Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No -- Ronline ✉ 08:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No Bulldog123 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No You can't possibly be serious... naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes -- Ronline ✉ 08:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes (although knows little about some of these) Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Bulldog123 12:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe —Nightstallion (?) 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Ron,

I fixed it 69.165.132.220 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No —Nightstallion (?) 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• No, per Ronline naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No, really no more third world than Nunavut or remote parts of Alaska --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No —Nightstallion (?) 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

• Maybe for  Belarus,  Russia and  Ukraine, no for the others. —Nightstallion (?) 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

• Against this option Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Against this option Bulldog123 12:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Against this option naryathegreat | (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Against this option Ronline ✉ 05:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Against this option, use the HDI map --Bletch 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I'm for using both the HDI map and a map showing common usage of the term. —Nightstallion (?) 18:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes It makes sense for contrast with a more scientific study naryathegreat | (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• alright, I will add eastern europe and russia as a heading -- Astrokey44|talk 04:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]