Talk:Third World/countries vote

message: 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:
Image:World map with arbitrarily red coloured states.png|map1
Image:World map with unsystematically purple coloured states.png|map2
Image:Third_world_countries_map_world_2.PNG|map3
Image:Third_world_countries_map_world.gif|map4
Image:Map of states with medium or low HDI.png|map5
Image:HDImap_current.png|HDI map
Image:Firstworld.png|First World map
Image:Secondworld-extended.png|former Second World map
Image:Worldmap-Worlds1234.png|First/Second/Third/Fourth Worlds map
Also other maps of third world countries at external links here: , 
,
,
,
,
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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: === Argentina, Chile and Uruguay ===
*Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Latin America]] 

message: *Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Argentina]], [[Chile]] and [[Uruguay]] 

message: *Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Panama]] and [[Costa Rica]]

message: *Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin America excluding Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Panama and Costa Rica

message: ===South Africa===
*Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Africa]] 

message: *Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[South Africa]]

message: *Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Africa excluding South Africa

message: ===Gulf states - Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar=== 
*Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, I change my vote to Yes. Arre 04:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Asia]] 

message: *Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gulf states - [[Kuwait]], [[UAE]], [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Bahrain]], [[Qatar]]

message: *Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Central Asia]] ([[Kazakhstan]], [[Uzbekistan]], [[Turkmenistan]], [[Tajikistan]], [[Kyrgyzstan]])

message: *No for Georgia, Yes for Azerbaijan and Armenia -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Transcaucasus]] ([[Georgia (country)|Georgia]], [[Armenia]] and [[Azerbaijan]])

message: *Maybe for China, Yes for Mongolia and N.Korea -- Astrokey44|talk 04:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[China]], [[Mongolia]] and [[North Korea]]

message: *Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Palestine]]

message: *Maybe -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Turkey]]

message: *Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, I change my vote to Yes. Arre 04:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lebanon]], [[Syria]], [[Iraq]], [[Iran]], [[Yemen]], [[Oman]], [[South Asia]], [[Southeast Asia]], [[Philippines]], [[Indonesia]], [[Malaysia]] 

message: *No -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Singapore, Taiwan

message: *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)
thread_title: [[Israel]] and [[South Korea]]

message: ===Oceania (Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji, other small island states)===
*Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ron, I fixed it 69.165.132.220 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Ronline ✉ 11:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you don't mind me asking, why Albania in particular? Moldova, for example, is poorer and has a lower HDI (significantly) than Albania.  Ronline ✉ 07:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing against Albania, I just don't know enough about the others to make any judgment regarding them :)  nsandwich 07:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: And btw, the word "ex-Communist" doesn't provide any sensible information/categorisation about these countries. Pavel Vozenilek 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contraire; as cited – meaning with "prior-market planned economies/regimes".  For added sense, and before evincing the opposite, please consult a dictionary. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other areas 

message: *Yes -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Oceania]] ([[Papua New Guinea]], [[Solomon Islands]], [[Fiji]], other small island states)

message: *No -- Astrokey44|talk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ron, I fixed it 69.165.132.220 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Ronline ✉ 11:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you don't mind me asking, why Albania in particular? Moldova, for example, is poorer and has a lower HDI (significantly) than Albania.  Ronline ✉ 07:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing against Albania, I just don't know enough about the others to make any judgment regarding them :)  nsandwich 07:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Southern/south-eastern Europe (former [[Yugoslavia]], [[Albania]], [[Romania]], [[Bulgaria]], [[Moldova]])

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *in fact, qatar's GNP/capita is more than double that of greenland. Arre 02:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Greenland 

message: *No -- Astrokey44|talk 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And btw, the word "ex-Communist" doesn't provide any sensible information/categorisation about these countries. Pavel Vozenilek 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contraire; as cited – meaning with "prior-market planned economies/regimes".  For added sense, and before evincing the opposite, please consult a dictionary. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Russia]] and Eastern Europe ([[Poland]], [[Czech republic]], [[Slovakia]], [[Hungary]], [[Belarus]], [[Ukraine]], [[Lithuania]], [[Latvia]], [[Estonia]])  

message: Too controversial so no map of the third world should be shown
*Against this option Arre 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No map 

message: *I'm for using both the HDI map and a map showing common usage of the term. —Nightstallion (?) 18:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use HDI map as well 

message: * 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *alright, I will add eastern europe and russia as a heading -- Astrokey44|talk 04:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments 

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

message: This poll was set to close on the 6th of February has now finished. These are the results:
=== Yes ===
*Latin America excluding Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Panama and Costa Rica: Yes (9 to 3 other votes)
*Africa excluding South Africa: Yes (11 unanimous) 
*Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan): Yes (8 yes, 1 no, 1 maybe)
* Yes for Azerbaijan (4 y, 3n, 2m)
* Yes for Mongolia (9 yes to 1 no); Yes for North Korea (7y, 2n, 1m)
*Palestine: Yes (7 yes to 2 maybe)
*Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Oman, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia: Yes (10 yes overrules 2 votes for Vietnam as No and 1 No for Laos)
*Oceania (Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji, other small island states): Yes (8 yes to 1maybe)
=== Maybe ===
*Argentina, Chile and Uruguay: Maybe (9 maybe to 1 yes)
*Panama and Costa Rica: Maybe (8 maybe to 2 yes)
*South Africa: Maybe (8 maybe to 3 yes)
*Gulf states - Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar: Maybe (6 maybe, 4 yes, 1 no)
*Maybe for China (5m, 3y, 2n); 
*Turkey: Maybe (5m, 3n, 1y)
=== No ===
*No for Georgia (5n, 2m, 1y), No for Armenia (4 n, 2m, 2y) 
*Singapore, Taiwan: No (9 yes to 1 no)
*Israel and South Korea: No (5 yes to 1 no)
*Southern/south-eastern Europe (former Yugoslavia, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova): No. Albania gets 2 maybes and 1 yes, Moldova 1 maybe, but still outweighed by No votes for all (5 no, 2 maybe)
*Greenland: No (7 no to 1 maybe)
*Russia and Eastern Europe (Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia): No (9 no for all, with 2 maybe for some)
=== Other questions ===
*No map: Against (8 against to 3 support)
*Use HDI map as well: Support (unanimous)
-- Astrokey44|talk 05:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one thing I have about the results - it's irrational to put Azerbaijan as a Third World definite and Georgia and Armenia as a definite no. I don't know why people think otherwise, but the Caucasus is quite a homogenous area socio-economically, and should be put as "maybe Third World". Azerbaijan and Armenia are the best off economically of the three states (Azerbaijan in particularly is somewhat developed), while Georgia is the most socially-liberal (but the poorest). Azerbaijan is also following Turkey, and hence increasingly developing itself. Georgia is still unstable and poor, even though the revolution did achieve something in terms of democratic governance. But seeing Georgia as a *clear* exception is not the best idea. I don't mind if Georgia and Armenia are put as "No", but no-one has given an adequate explanation. Also, Azerbaijan got 5 votes for "no" or maybe, while only 4 votes for yes. So only a plurality think it should be a Third World definite. Otherwise, everything's OK.  Ronline ✉ 12:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were very close, but I was listing them here purely by numbers. Azerbaijan could probably be moved to maybe under that rationale.  -- Astrokey44|talk 14:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I'll also reiterate that, given the varied nature of choices and comments above (present company included), that we should only include a map (based on one) from a reputable source.  In absence of that, or perhaps in concert with it (as revealed in the vote), the HDI map should suffice and is unambiguous. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think Astrokey's idea of having a discussion and poll on this was very good. There are very few reputable Third World maps out there, and the HDI really serves no purpose - it doesn't outline what countries are or are not Third World, unless we say that all low-HDI countries are Third World or something like that. I was just making a point about the interesting case of the Caucasus.  Ronline ✉ 06:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand.  I agree with all about the need for discussion and the utility of this poll.  However, I'm merely reiterating the importance of citing reliable sources before moving forward: consensus aside, we cannot and should not present information based on subjective opining.  If there are few sources upon which to base such a map (and I see little of that above), it may be prudent to not include one.  And, in this instance, the HDI map may serve a more important function (and rather disagree with you on that point) ... particularly if it has a generic caption as suggested.  That would at least enable visitors to make their own conclusions about Third World constituents, instead of us telling them what we think it is comprised of. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results 

message: *No map: Against (8 against to 3 support)
*Use HDI map as well: Support (unanimous)
-- Astrokey44|talk 05:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one thing I have about the results - it's irrational to put Azerbaijan as a Third World definite and Georgia and Armenia as a definite no. I don't know why people think otherwise, but the Caucasus is quite a homogenous area socio-economically, and should be put as "maybe Third World". Azerbaijan and Armenia are the best off economically of the three states (Azerbaijan in particularly is somewhat developed), while Georgia is the most socially-liberal (but the poorest). Azerbaijan is also following Turkey, and hence increasingly developing itself. Georgia is still unstable and poor, even though the revolution did achieve something in terms of democratic governance. But seeing Georgia as a *clear* exception is not the best idea. I don't mind if Georgia and Armenia are put as "No", but no-one has given an adequate explanation. Also, Azerbaijan got 5 votes for "no" or maybe, while only 4 votes for yes. So only a plurality think it should be a Third World definite. Otherwise, everything's OK.  Ronline ✉ 12:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were very close, but I was listing them here purely by numbers. Azerbaijan could probably be moved to maybe under that rationale.  -- Astrokey44|talk 14:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I'll also reiterate that, given the varied nature of choices and comments above (present company included), that we should only include a map (based on one) from a reputable source.  In absence of that, or perhaps in concert with it (as revealed in the vote), the HDI map should suffice and is unambiguous. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think Astrokey's idea of having a discussion and poll on this was very good. There are very few reputable Third World maps out there, and the HDI really serves no purpose - it doesn't outline what countries are or are not Third World, unless we say that all low-HDI countries are Third World or something like that. I was just making a point about the interesting case of the Caucasus.  Ronline ✉ 06:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand.  I agree with all about the need for discussion and the utility of this poll.  However, I'm merely reiterating the importance of citing reliable sources before moving forward: consensus aside, we cannot and should not present information based on subjective opining.  If there are few sources upon which to base such a map (and I see little of that above), it may be prudent to not include one.  And, in this instance, the HDI map may serve a more important function (and rather disagree with you on that point) ... particularly if it has a generic caption as suggested.  That would at least enable visitors to make their own conclusions about Third World constituents, instead of us telling them what we think it is comprised of. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other questions 

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

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