Talk:First World

message: :See also /Archive 1#Adoption for a Educational Assignment/ Research and Development Plan
:See also /Archive 1#SOC 0317 Discussion
Hey Guys,
I was getting ready to post some of my information regarding GDP, and the Human Development Index, which also covers, GNP, as well as literacy. However I just saw thatv someone yesterday deleted a large portion of the article, because most of the data dealt with high income economies which differs from the first world. I will post what i think my reasearch should be, but we should discuss this as the meeting today.
Mln30 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. I posted a couple of messages to this talk page (see /Archive 1#High income economies), and also to Talk:High income economy#First World -- PBS (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Melissa, the outline is now posted on the "current talk page" and can be edited. JFA7 (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I can probably meet tomorrow after class Kate. JFA7 (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: SOC 0317 Discussion

message: We are adopting this article for a educational assignment for our sociology course! Rgg6 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ragini - thanks for letting me know. I assume that was our plan, but I know for sure now. JFA7 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SOC 0317 - First World Outline 

message: I have edited the beginning of the article and added the subheading "Three World Model."  I kept most of the content already there but did some rewording.  I am unsure of the relevance of the discussion regarding specific countries that were either unaligned or for whatever reason do not fit in the model. This doesn't have much to do with First World in general.  The Three World Model should just give the context for the term and concept of "First World," therefore I believe it should be either deleted, relocated or shortened.
 I will add a short line about the "fourth world" under this heading as well Rgg6 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanations/Comments on New Edits

message: :See also /Archive 1#High income economies
From my talk page:
:Hi Philip; this article is being edited by my students as part of an educational assignment. Perhaps you could explain to them on talk why you removed some information from the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: @PBS, I see where you are coming from, however, if the term "First World" is still being used in today's age, then don't you think information regarding how the term is used now is appropriate to include in the article? Rgg6 (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it is sometimes used today its prevalence has dropped way off since the end of the Cold War for example I just ran a Google News search on ["First World" Poland -"world cup" -"world War"], only one of the articles returned was about First World as a group of states (Eat Hedgehogs by B. S. Kalafut) and that was in a Cold War context. While ["Developed Nation" Poland] returned six articles but all about the specific subject we are discussing. -- PBS (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: High income economies

message: Early draft review:
*This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
*If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it has been
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please provide citations for all of the s. Ideally, each sentence should have a reliable reference. [?]
*Book citations should have page numbers. External links should be properly formatted with additional information, see WP:CITE. External links when used as reference should fulfill the reliability criteria as per WP:RS.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early draft review 

message: After these comments I went through the headings and changed them to fit the style of wikipedia, ie. not using the term "first world" in headings because it is repetitive. I think if all of us pick one of Piotr's suggestions and change it in the article, it will be much better. If you guys can do it by the end of the week that would be great
Kmm131 (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Post-communism section should be deleted - it is remnants from the article before we started editing it... Maybe I can stick in a few sentences in the Three World Model section about how the Second World ceased to exist.  The fourth world section is already in said section. Rgg6 (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text: In regards to "Sushwap Chief," that was how he was referred to in the source, also wouldn't his being a Native American chief writing on Native Americans make him a primary source? ...maybe not... Rgg6 (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Maybe (after looking at this [brain drain] image) we can also discuss, how first world countries get an influx of skilled workers, as they look for better lives...meaning, the first world countries have heterogeneous and skilled populations (while third world countries have homogeneous unskilled populations) Rgg6 (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I find the table, unnecessary and irrelevant....along with those pictures that were put up...the captions are completely unrelated to what is discussed in the section...I vote it be removed (along with those pictures)..Rgg6 (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also vote that the table be removed.  It clashes with Melissa's information, as well as our map.  Ditto with the pictures which seem irrelevant to me. Jsf26 (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to contact the editor who added the table and ask him to properly reference it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

text: @Kate: I think you were the one who typed that paragraph - did you have any sources in particular that you were looking at? Jsf26 (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to Early Draft Review

message: Hello all, impeccable work on the article so far, Kudos all round.
I would however give a few pointers on how to correctly CITE and how to use  and the use of citation templates.
The most common ref you are going to use for this article is  reading through the template pages should give you a very good idea of how to use them. You don't have to fill out all the information on every cite. however the more information the merrier. title= is the only field that is compulsory for .
So using Globalization in World History as an example you would fill it out like this:
<ref>
As you can see this has left rather a large amount of fields unfilled, that's okay, in fact we can get rid of them, leaving us with this:

Now, obviously, you are using the book multiple times through the article so rather than cutting an pasting each and every time I'm going to show you how to use  so what we are going to do is give the reference a name, we'll call it "hopkins", but you can all it anything "Globalization", "global" or even "asghd" or "iu43gh", ANYTHING, but to make it easy to remember we'll just stick with "hopkins" (it is cAsE SenSItiVE) so make sure you stick with either upper- or lower-case. So you simply put in <ref name= > the first time that you use the ref instead of <ref> and then every time you want to use that ref you simply put in  So now every time that you want to reference Globalization in World History all you need to do is put in .
Now you want to quote an individual page, but you don't want to have to cut and paste and modify the cite each time you ref a page, so (as odd as this may sound) ignore what I just told you. Well, not entirely. we'll still use <ref name= > so when we want to quote page three multiple times we'll call our new ref "hop3" and when we quote page 21 we'll call that "hop21", but again it can be anything so now we'll fill the article full of this; <ref name=hop3>Hopkins 2003, page 3Hopkins 2003, page 3 and this; Hopkins 2003, page 21Hopkins 2003, page 21, then whenever you want to ref page three you simply put in  and to ref page 21 use 
Then we need to split the references section at the bottom in two: ==Notes== and ==References== in ==Notes== we'll stick the  template, and since it is a particularly large amount of references will split it into 4 columns by writing it like this:  this will automatically list all the <ref>'s throughout the article and sort them into 4 even columns for us.
Under the ==References== We'll list each of the books like this: . That way when people see "Hopkins 2003, Page 3" listed under ==Notes== they'll know to look for it under ==References== for Hopkins name.
If you've done it all properly it should look like below.
====Notes====
====References====
You may also want to check out the various other citation templates and use those in the article.Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using templates and <nowiki><ref name= ></nowiki> makes it much easier

message: You may also want to check out the various other citation templates and use those in the article.Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Hey everyone, thought we could use this space to document which things we corrected in the article so we don't get repetitive or work on one section more than once.
I fixed all the comments under, "definition" except for the broken web link. Whoever posted that one, should try and fix it. Kmm131 (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Jess and I have been putting comments under specific bullets once we have fixed them...I think Pyrotec suggests this also. Thanks for fixing the above! Rgg6 (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review: Corrections 

message: I noticed that this article had just been promoted to GA. While it seems to be generally a good article, I was surprised by the "Globalization" section. One of the "Pro" points, and two of the "Con" points are specifically about one nation, namely the United States. This section seems to be based primarily on one source, and while a U.S.-centric point of view is natural for BusinessWeek, it is not so for Wikipedia. I think some more  editing is necessary here before the article fully meets number 4 of the Good Article criteria. Lampman (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply removing maintenance templates without engaging in discussion seems a bit uncivil. There was exactly five minutes between me putting up the template and posting my comment on the talk page, which should be within a permissible time frame. Lampman (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lampman, I just assumed that you had stuck the label there without reading the section. I fail to see why the section needs such as label when the first paragraph is about the United Nations, the fourth subsection is about the European Union and the fifth subsection is about multinational corporations and GATT and the final one is about outsourcing and specifically mentions the UK. Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. My issue is with the "Pros and Cons" sections specifically. It see no reasons why a section describing the pros and cons of globalisation should give undue attention to the pros and cons for one country specifically. These two sections are pure cut-and-paste jobs from BusinessWeek, and the national bias has been carried over from there. Furthermore, I'm not sure it's been made clear enough that these sections are direct quotes from another source; ideally quotes should be clearly marked with quotation marks or block quotes. It would be better if this was re-written in prose form, bringing in other sources as well. I'm sure Naomi Klein and others have plenty to say about this. Lampman (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without dissagreeing with you, I would suggest that the template is in the wrong place. Your paragraph states that it is the Pros and the Cons subsection that are the percevied problem, not the Section as a whole? Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's correct. I guess the alternative would be one template on each of the two subsection, but I though that would be a bit excessive. In any case, the template point to this debate, where the specifics are explained. Lampman (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyway, I made a change now that I hope will make it more acceptable. Lampman (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's OK by me and I have no problem about re-writting in prose. Comming back to you're earlier statement, you are right the Cons & the Pros are direct quotes. However, if we did an imaginary substitution of "UK" for "US", "Brits" for "Americans" I'm reasonably certain that the pros & cons could be considered applicable to the UK. We hate dealing with call centres in India, etc. Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this is true, but then you would have to reinterpret the BusinessWeek article to apply also to other First World nations, which might be reading too much into it. This is why I suggest bringing in other and more general sources. Lampman (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  See also my comments about the problems with the pros and cons section from 2:50 pm, 8 November 2009, Sunday. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are working on fixing the globalization section.  Rgg6 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have changed the headers to specifically indicate the Pros and Cons are speaking only to the United States. Would you have any other recommendations as to how to improve this section? JFA7 (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eh, yes, make it apply to other countries than the United States... The article defines the First World as around twenty-five countries. This is just a lazy way to maintain the status quo, cut-and-paste, one-source version of the page as it is, rather than write a proper prose section that'll present a synthesis of current writing on the subject. Lampman (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have chosen to remove the pros/cons section, finding that it did have some irrelevance to the article as a whole. A new section on the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been developed. Comments/Thoughts are welcome! JFA7 (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Big improvement, but don't forget that books have titles, authors, publishers, publication dates and isbns; and they should be cited (I've done this one for you). Pyrotec (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jon, I've sent a message regarding another good source for WTO. Rgg6 (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize 

message: This article should certainly include some mention of the origins of the term in Churchill's famous "Iron Curtain" speech.  Also, I doubt Note 8 (and the discussion based on it) is correct.  It's pretty well-known that the first world /second world split came from Churchill, that the third world meant the non-aligned movement, and that the term fourth world is a recent extention of this reasoning.  I seriously doubt that the four worlds are mentioned as early as 1945 by any official UN source.  I suspect instead that the UN, founded in 1945, now mentions four worlds in its documents.
I may not be absolutely correct here, but I'm pretty darned sure that the account given in the article is absolutely wrong.
S.
Sbabones (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These statements in the articles have sources, can you provide some sources for your comments? Rgg6 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  For "note 8" are you referring to source 8? In regards to the four worlds, the fourth world was not from 1945, but later (famous book came out in 1974) and serves as a revision of the three world model Rgg6 (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Than you need to correct it in text. Currently the article reads: "In 1945, the United Nations (UN) used the terms first, second, third, and fourth worlds to define the relative wealth of nations" (which does correspond to what the source says). PS. The sources are not contradictory; it can be that UN used the term fourth world in 1945, but it did not became popular till the publications of 1970s. It would be nice to have this clarified, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  00:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a parenthetical note to clarify that Rgg6 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, which source is the note based on? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the source up so now the note has a source (9) Rgg6 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think that's fine now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a few sentences regarding Churchill's Iron Curtain speech. Rgg6 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill 

message: The WP:COPYVIO issues in the outsourcing section need to be addressed as soon as possible. PS. I'd also suggest some rewriting in the European Union section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made an edit to the Talk:First World/Temp page that will hopefully be a start to correcting this issue. Please review. JFA7 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems better; it will of course need an expansion with regards to why is it relevant to this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you take another look at the temp page? JFA7 (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's developing in the right direction. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  06:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems

message: The map is totally false. For example, Switzerland, Austria and ex-Yugoslavia states (among other wrong things) should, according to the explanation be green, as they were not alligned during the cold war. The Red colour for ex-Yu states is really a scratch - it was a founding member of the non-alligned movementHammer of Habsburg (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the map is very inacurate, it clearly states "the Soviet Union and its allies" - in red, and "Non-aligned and neutral countries" in green. Yugoslavia was founder and member of Non-aligned movement and therefore the map is misleading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.235.234 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First map 

message: Do you think we need this image from the Cold war, while it was ended in 1991 (20 years ago)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first image 

message: I have a book that I've had since the 1980s that showed a similar map but it had a so-called "Fourth World," which was basically the poorest countries such as Ethiopia, Haiti, etc.  If anyone is interested I will get it out and try to scan it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.62.110 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth world 

message: Angola isnt at all in the first world. Can someone correct that map pleese. (201.82.151.218 (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that that map is referring to developed vs. developing nations. Elockid   (Talk) 23:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about development, is that angola was a single-party socialist state, so it sould be at the second or the third world (201.82.151.218 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angola 

message: I've heard some mention a fourth world. With the first world being the free states, the second world being the socialist states and the third world being the 'other' states, I presume the third world is split but I'm not sure in which way. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.147.116 (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a 'Fourth World' 

message: I know that these countries were neutral during the Cold war, but they never joined the Non-Aligned Movement either. In the article these countries are specifically counted as part of the first world, as they most probably were during that time. But the map says something else. Is there any evidence for Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland ever been grouped as "third world countries" in any context, despite their neutrality? --Aatox (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly not. This needs to be fixed. I don't know if Alfred Sauvy's 1952 use was intended to include these countries (but I doubt it), but that's definitely not how the term "third world" was ever used once it came into common usage. --83.26.128.20 (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland 

message: South Africa was and is clearly not a third world country.  The map is very inaccurate.203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third World 

message: Is this really accurate? If that's so, can anyone explain how can you be part of the 1st world at the same time that you are a communist? I mean, they were expropriating banks, private property (even the Ritz Hotel was nationalized) just like the communists did in Russia and in Eastern Europe. Can you say that Romania was part of the 1st world too? MarcosPassos (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Portugal is a rich industrialized country. Hence, 1st world. Romania was during the cold war a poor communist country, hence 2nd world. --83.26.128.20 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugal being part of the 1st world 

message: I have rarely encountered a more opinionated WP article than this. I've only had the time and the inclination to work on the lead, which I've converted from a Marxist essay on geopolitics to an article in an encyclopedia. Others are welcome to have a crack at the rest. The concept is however very much a Cold War one and is hence increasingly irrelevant IMO Chrismorey (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article dedicates a whole paragraph to Taiwan it should be a good one. :-) The article must be re-written in a "recent history" tone and approach. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: There are historical many examples of sovereign countries coming together under a higher level of authority -- and this is different from globalization. The World Trade Organization is sort of like the old, prekaiserly Zollverein -- and it has its opponents as to fairness of opportunities and distribution of results. That organization is suitable to discuss under the concept of globalization. 
The European Union is not. They even have their own sequence of three types of countries -- first countries are already in the EU, second countries could join the EU but are not as politically or financially as trustworthy and reliable as they ought to be, and third countries are not part of Europe and could not be part of the EU (although I never came across the terms "first countries" or "second countries"). 
Globalization is not limited to place of activity ; it is the result of large firms and investors looking for gain anywhere they can get it. If a venture fails from the natives of some third-world country failing to perform adequately, investment will go somewhere else. This article's expression of the fact that twenty-seven industrializable countries have decided on a somewhat greater ease of factory location, distribution, or operation has nothing to do with global development (meaning, development as concerns the third world), either warped or admirable. The same is true for NAFTA and MERCOSUR. 173.162.253.101 (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The EU paragraphs under Globalization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on First World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060828071626/http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_en.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was forced to overhaul the lead due to its outdated definition of First World basically being countries allied with the US. This may still largely hold true, but correlation does not imply causation. For the dated definition this holds true: the West in the Cold War has largely become the richest part. But the map which was formerly at the top of the page is now simply obsolete. In modern usage, "first world" nearly always refers to the richest, most economically advanced countries in the world. This is why people are on the TP complaining about countries being part of the first/second/third world. It's not that simple. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much focus on the Cold War 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on First World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053438/http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/cold_war.htm to http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/cold_war.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160221081815/http://www.pocanticohills.org/amprogress/The_%20Cold_%20War.htm to http://www.pocanticohills.org/amprogress/The_%20Cold_%20War.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161015224819/http://www.globalization101.org/What_is_Globalization.html to http://www.globalization101.org/What_is_Globalization.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924035737/http://www.international.ucla.edu/euro/teachers/article.asp?parentid=23564 to http://www.international.ucla.edu/euro/teachers/article.asp?parentid=23564
*Added  tag to http://www.eurunion.org/eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=43
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722065135/http://www.decon.unipd.it/info/sid/materiale9/bel_eat_letture_ottava_settimana/quinn1.pdf to http://www.decon.unipd.it/info/sid/materiale9/bel_eat_letture_ottava_settimana/quinn1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Where are the lists of countries that make up the maps?
I'd personally be more interested in rich versus poor (modern) than the historical (U.S. and allies, soviet union and allies, and neutral), but any and all actual lists would be interesting.
dfrankow (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of countries 

message: Is Sweden not considered a First World Country? It a very developed industrialized country. BreoncoUSA1 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. El_C 18:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweden 

message: There is a growing consensus that the United States doesn't belong to be counted among developed countries. Should it no longer be listed among "first world" countries? See https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2020/apr/06/coronavirus-american-reaction-economy-covid-19?CMP=share_btn_fb for more information.
205.220.233.203 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. We go by due weight of overall sources. An article from The Guardian does not change that in a meaningful way. El_C 18:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the USA still be considered "first world"?

message: I was looking at the world map, and I saw that Namibia is shown as an independent country. However, it did not actually get its independence until 1990. Unfortunately, I am not all too familiar with editing files, so I will need some help here. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: Where is the third world? The same issue is there on this page, the second world page, and the third world page too.  Samithufedo (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't see any green in the map. I only see grey. Where is the third world?