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
• 
  First World map
• 
  former Second World map

Also other maps of third world countries at external links here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] 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 --Jusjih 08:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:13, 1 February 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]
• Maybe --Jusjih 08:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:13, 1 February 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]
• No""" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.46.170 (talk • contribs)
• Yes --Jusjih 08:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, but weak no for Cuba (Communist) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:13, 1 February 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]
• Matbe --Jusjih 08:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Maybe, you only hear about the 1st world conditions, but 3rd world conditions definetly exist. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[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]
• Yes --Jusjih 08:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes --196.43.104.206 10:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:14, 1 February 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]
• Maybe --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[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]
• Yes --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No Despite being economically undeveloped, ex-Communist. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:20, 1 February 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]
• Yes --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No Despite being economically undeveloped, ex-Communist. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes only for Azerbaijan. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:20, 1 February 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]
• Yes --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• No, yes, no, respectively. PRK and CHN are still communist countries, and should be second world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjsixsix (talk • contribs)

• 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]
• Yes --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes not an AIC. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 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]
• Maybe --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes it should be excluded on the basis of mod/low GDP/HDI. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:20, 1 February 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]
• Yes --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, but weak no for Vietnam and Laos (Communist) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[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]
• No --Jusjih 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• No and No -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• No Both are advanced countries which are almost always seen as first world -- Astrokey44|talk 14:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong no - see Astrokey44. Arre 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No and No - in developing regions, but not developing nations. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:20, 1 February 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]
• Yes --Jusjih 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 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]
• Maybe --Jusjih 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No despite being undeveloped economies, they are ex-Communist. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 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]

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)[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 --Jusjih 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No part of Denmark. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No, Denmark is first world. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:22, 1 February 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]
• No --Jusjih 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No ex-Communist. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No for all -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 07:22, 1 February 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]

• Against. —Nightstallion (?) 07:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Against Agree with Bletch--Colle 07:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: the Third World is too hazily defined as a concept. — Preceding unsigned comment 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)[reply]
• Against this option The term has some currency; such a map will clearly have to indicate sources and timeframe. Also see my commentary below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:23, 31 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]
• Support for putting HDI map --Donar Reiskoffer 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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 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)[reply]
• Yes. Arre 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support. If it's possible, it should be the only map in the article. CG 18:45, 2 February 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]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]

• 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 [6] which refers to the "Third World" peoples of Soviet Central asia -- Astrokey44|talk 12:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 developing countries (except Slovenia, with a high HDI);
  • Similarly, as a conciliation, I qualify my 'no' votes above as maybes (weak yes) 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)[reply]