Talk:Global North and Global South

message: If Australia and New Zealand are considered as a part of the North, based on economic development and cultural reasons, shouldn't the Southern Coners also be considered as a part of the North (or at least being mentioned on the article)? They are more closely related to the North than to their South American neighbors (and obviously than to the other "Southern" countries) based both on culture as well as on economic and human development.SFBB (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Southern Coners

message: Why not make the colourblind map the thumbnail? I don't like to click things that take time to load. Mensilater (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The color-blind map is based on older data. What would be best, I suppose, would be if someone made the current map color-blind compliant rather than linking to an older map. - Nellis 15:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Hello I am Yamen and I am going to talk to you about a global North-South divide is an outdated concept that no longer holds accuracy in today's world, it smacks more of 19th and 20th century Eurocentric racism.
Regarding the map, can anyone explain why such countries as Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Brunei, Seychelles, The Bahamas, Barbados are not included in the blue developed area?
All these countries have a high GDP per capita and a high Human Development Index. Many Eastern European 'blue' countries on that map are poorer, less developed and rank below these countries in most ratings.
The article should be deleted as it doesn't hold together. 90.193.39.195 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominate for deletion

message: Moved Israel to Europe, as it is geographically and culturally closer to Europe than Asia.
:The article on Europe does not include Israel within it, thus for internal consistency I am placing Israel back in Asia. AlexD 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Israel 

message: Per capita GDP of china is well below that of Northern countries, on par with the majority of south American countries, which are not part of 'The North'. Also China is not a developed country, though it has advanced industry sectors. Infrastructure development, environmental and health & safety regulations, and political organization in China do not yet meet the level of those found in advanced Western nations such as Britain and Sweden, which are considered members of 'The North'.   
There is obviously problems with what is North and what is South and some people here seems to be suggesting that some countries "deserve" to be North based on thier own personal evaluations. The map, as many here say, simplifies too much. Some very high GDP per capita countries are labelled as "South" such as Singapore and Hong Kong. The statement that "virtually all the wealth is held in the North" is wrong if we define North and South by that map because the combined gross GDP of China, India, and Brazil is significantly high. The article needs to address the ambiguities.
----
if any one has any information other than this can they send it to me with the subjet:north-south to charlottelouisecook@hotmail.com thank you very much
We know that Manchester is in the North and London is in the South, but what about in between?
:The Midlands are considered to be south by the north and north by the south.  Morwen - Talk 08:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a former native of Norfolk (and more specifically, North Norfolk), I've often faced this debate. My particular town (Hunstanton) is dead level with Stoke On Trent, which is almost universally acknowledged as the Midlands; alternatively, I've seen Norfolk described as "geographically south but economcally north". In short, nobody seems to know and even fewer people seem to care. ;-) Kinitawowi 10:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed China 

message: I moved this part of the article to a different article because it seemed to be talking about a different divide.  In the case for the new article, the divide is specific to the UK and the south is the more prosperous than the north.  This new article is called North-South divide in the United Kingdom.  Rs564 22:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved North-south divide in the UK 

message: Why are Russia and South Africa members of the "north"? Brazil, for example, has a higher GDP and IDH than both of these nations, but it is considered "South".
Chile and Argentine, for exemple, have a higher (a LOT higher)IDH than South Africa.
:It is a silly division. It was something invented by the Americans and English who think that the world ends at the equator. Wallie 18:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, so does anyone want to update the map?  Shouldn't be too hard - just download the high-quality version & use some program (even MSPaint will probably work) to colour some countries differently.  Then upload it to wikipedia and replace this one.  This would be easier if there was a clear criteria for the requirements to be in the "north".  I too am not quite sure that South Africa deserves to be there... it's doing much better than its surrounding countries, but it's got plenty of its own problems... whereas the United Arab Emirates and maybe Kazakhstan might deserve to be there, in addition to all of those wealthy nations in South-East Asia (like Singapore and South Korea).  But first, we need to establish some kind of clear criteria on a country's inclusion.  Scientific progress & a highly educated populace should count for something too, I think (which is why Russia deserves its place).  Esn 22:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of us are likely qualified to update this... Granted i agree with you, when i looked at it my first thought was why isnt South korea on there, then it went further, Hong Kong, Israel,UAE and Taiwan... If you want the editted map however we do need a conclusive list then of what to add although im afraid that would violate the personally done research rule of Wikipedia. IF someone can find a better list of nations though i'd be happy to make the map myself. Ass for a point made above, the addition of Kazakhstand would be foolish without including Thailand, and that is a bit further than i think most would be willing to go...HawkShark
To me this division doesn't make any sense at all; but I suggest, if someone wants to change the map, to paint some countries in purple...The best would be to delete this article, itself it suggests that calling it "north-south divide" is senseless; if this division was bond with the development index it would be altogether different. What is this division founded in then?--Cloviz 03:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly geo-political division 

message: I may have reverted the image back to an older version by mistake. Not sure if is actually different. My apologies. --Stacey 21:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Just because a country is developed does NOT mean that it's part of the North.  Most of the Northern countries are white, so perhaps this is a more scientifically valid division of humans.  China would probably NEVER be part of the North - and what the hell is Russian doing there?!  This article is totally subjective and coloured in some kind of pseudo-formal fascistic rhetoric.  Can someone vote for deletion please?  
?--Nukamason 16:35, 08 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The north-south divide is not a division of human beings but a divison of countries primarily based on GNP, the main division occurred as a result of the Brandt Commission that produced the Brandt Line. The model as it stands is one that is out-dated and does not represent the present spatial division of GNP levels that has been produced firstly by internationalisation and then by globalisation. The model is part of how global inequalities and development has been measured with the "first" being the three worlds model, followed by the brandt line and then the move from economic indicators to social and environmental and now to the prsent globalisation view and is not a "pseudo-formal fascistic rhetoric", prehaps you ought to take a look at this site understand the division http://www.s-cool.co.uk/topic_quicklearn.asp?loc=ql&topic_id=13&quicklearn_id=1&subject_id=20&ebt=151&ebn=&ebs=&ebl=&elc=4. Hope that helps AlexD 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Scientific!!!

message: I added Taiwan to list as it was missing, and I am going to move the Other Countries section up into Europe, unless anyone has any objections... I don't see why the Balkans, Russia and East/Central Europe should be separate. I understand that they are less economically developed but I do not believe that they should therefore be confined to their own subsection, they are geographically Europe so I will add them there, if anyone has objections please state them. Basser g 16:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: Turkey should be in the north.
At least, 70% of Turkey is highly more developed than most of the european lands (east europe) included in the north. 
I think that this map has been made by unscientific and racist knowledgeless criteria.
bye..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.83.185 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey belongs to the north 

message: Poland is lost in the division - it is neither in the North nor in the South - probably should be North - at least according to the map. Also all EU is North so Poland should be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.174.83.175 (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland is lost in division  

message: Someone needs to color Denmark in the map! It's obviously a developed country! 76.213.206.119 (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Regardless of what one might think about the United States, by most socioeconomic indices it's a developed country, right? (Same goes for Australia and South Africa, but I noticed the revised North-South divide seems to move north to exclude the US.) 69.107.248.106 (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone recolored the map 

message: I have created a new map including the southern cone of South America, and I was wondering what other countries people think should be included, if any. These were the only ones I saw out of previous suggestions that I found to be non-iffy, but if anyone could argue some of the other countries, then I could add them. Zazaban (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Map 

message: I removed the indication of Uruguay, Argentina, South Africa, Chile, Russia and eastern europe being 1st world. Their development level is well below that of Northern countries. Some of those countries, mainly the south americans (Uruguay, Argentina y Chile) and South Africa are more commonly associated with the term 'The South'. Their GDP per capita are also not the minimum required to be 1st world (USD $20.000,00), thus, the information presented can´t be considered correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joevicentini (talk • contribs) 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not saying they are first world, it is saying they are part of the global north. It's not the same thing, as explained in the article itself.  Zazaban (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it is saying they are first world countries, under the picture, it reads "The updated view of the north-south divide. Blue includes G8 states and developed/ first world states." Those countries are not 1st world or considered developed by the World Bank, thus,  the picture need corrections. The inclusion of south america countries and south africa in 'the north' is also completely speculative and based on personal evaluations. By standard references they are considered 'the south' rather than 'the north'. I really don't see why people are reverting the picture so many times when its obvious the old picture contains wrong information. Please, stop reverting it. 201.47.176.72 (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Then you're not familiar with Wikipedia. "people are reverting the picture so many times when its obvious the old picture contains wrong information" because they disagree with your changes and because it's not obvious, especially as their information is sourced and yours is not. Source your changes and then you have something to talk about with all of us horrible users who actually sign in and who actually use sourced material. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It still doesn't explain why you're removing Russia, and parts of the EU, both of which are in the G8. Zazaban (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Im just trying to help. The article where the first world countries are listed does not list the countries I excluded as 1st world. Also, the World Bank classify as first world any country that has more than USD 20.000,00 GPD per capita annualy. The picture is titled "G8 + first world countries", so it should contain just 1st world countries. That´s not the case of Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, and the countries of eastern europe i´ve put in red. Also, there are countries like Brazil who are more developed than South Africa and is listed as 3rd World, while South Africa is listed as 1st world. The article, in my opinion, presents biased information and should be revised. That´s why i tried to help it. Joevicentini (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zazaban, I´ve removed the eastern countries because they are not 1st world countries based on the classification given by the World Bank or IFM, or any other that i know. Same case of the south american countries and south africa. As I said 2 times before: the picture is labeled "G8 + 1st world countries", so it should contain just G8 and 1st world countries. I agree Russia should be pictured in blue because it´s a G8 state, so, i changed the picture to include Russia. Joevicentini (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

text: You still have to source your changes, otherwise it is original research, just like you've (bad faith?) tagged this article today. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kintetsubufallo, I´ve tagged the article because the issue we´re discussing is under dispute and neither sides sourced their changes. I´m not acting in bad faith and you should have realized this by now. Just keep arguments about the article itself and don´t try to guess other people's intentions, you´re not good at it. By the way, i´ve put a formal source by now to end this debate. I suggest you do the same if you want to change it again, or i'll keep correcting this article. Joevicentini (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I repeat, the north is not synonymous with 1st world. Also, the EU as a whole is part of the G8 (see the g8 article) so eastern european countries in the EU should be be blue. Zazaban (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zazaban, if eastern european countries are part of the G8, then i guess you´re right and i wouldn´t oppose putting them in blue. But please provide the source for this in the article. Joevicentini (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  I agree with the inclusion of eastern europe, because EU is represented at the G8, but i don´t agree with the inclusion of parts of south america and south africa. The statement classifying both as developed countries is unsourced and seems to be based purely on personal point of views, not real facts. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joevicentini (talk • contribs) 09:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the Eastern European states were only colored blue on the understanding that they were part of the EU and therefore the G8, then several of them should be changed back to red, as the entirety of Europe is not part of the EU. Specifically, Albania, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, and Ukraine should all be red. - Nellis 20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Uruguay, Argentina, South Africa, Chile, Russia and Eastern Europe of the map where it reads 1st world countries

message: This page should be moved to North-South divide (political geography) so that a new article can be made referring to the United Kingdom's supposed divide between the northern-southern halves of the country. --Litherlandsand (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Such an article already exists. I've added a disambiguation link to it at the top of this article. - Nellis 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation question 

message: "The North is home to four out of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council."
What constitutes North? China is entirely north of the equator and its southern most point is only moderately south of Florida and roughly the same as Puerto Rico, a US territory.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If the sentence is meant to describe the "North" rather than the Northern Hemisphere, then I think it's out of place. If the sentence is indeed meant to describe the Northern Hemisphere, then it is factually incorrect. Either way, I would support removing it. - Nellis 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd statement 

message: I think racial differences in the geographic areas in question need to be included in the "Theories Explaining the Divide" section, as explained, for example, by Lothrop Stoddard. I realize this is a contentious suggestion so I have not made the change myself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories Explaining the Divide: Race 

message: This page should be about the North Hemisphere versus the South, not the Rich Versus Poor. The map should indicate which countries are considered North Hemisphere and which are south, and then colored by GDP or RGDP. I feel that this article should focus more on how the divide does not always correspond to the reality of things (Israel, Australia, South Africa, many South American countries, etc.) instead of which rich countries technically in the Southern Hemisphere should be allowed to join the 'cool-kids-club," so to speak. This is an arbitrary divide that people believe represents supremacy, and this page should show that, perhaps refering to Reversed maps? Just some ideas i guess.99.186.202.66 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking at this whole page wrong 

message: are Chile, Argentina and Uruguay not blue? Retroqqq (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Turkey, Taiwan and default Greece are more developed than Southern Cone???? who makes this maps?Retroqqq (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: The way I look at it, usage of "North" and "South" to describe rich and poor areas of the world is a huge geographic oversimplification. If you really want to use these terms, you have to accept some poorer countries (Russia, China, Central Asia) can end up in the north while some richer countries (Australia/New Zealand, Southern Cone, Persian Gulf states) can end up in the south, using a strict geographic definition. If you want to talk about distinction between rich/developed countries and poor/less developed countries, don't use the terms North/South, the geographic oversimplification is misleading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.234.219.54 (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About terms "North" and "South" 

message: The fact that whoever oversees this article defends that ridiculously misleading blue/red map should be ashamed of him or herself. So I guess places like Albania, Kosovo, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Moldova, most of Turkey, New Orleans, Detroit, etc... are more developed than Southern South America. Given the current economic state of things, it's arguable wheather the EU or US are more developed! Well, that maybe slightly exagerated, but nontheless this article serves no point. It is not informative nor accurate. It should be closed down. The dugout (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax. The North-South Divide is a popular concept. Whether the concept accurately describes the world is a matter for academic debate, but has no bearing on whether the article about the concept should exist. - Nellis 19:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical Northern Hemisphere cultural bias 

message: I just added something to the article Western World which mentions (though I didn't cite it, I can readily do so, from the book "Hopes and Prospects") a statement by Noam Chomsky referring to Japan as part of "the South." He does say that Japan is exceptional in this regard, as the country has been able to attain a high level of development. But it seems that Chomsky was referring to the global South as something demarcated not by development (though that has been an identifiable trend, with Japan being the exception), but rather by a historical divide in place since the age of exploration, between countries of predominately European or non-European ethnicities (the North and the South, respectively, as with the classic dichotomy between the "West" and the "East" or "Orient"). Now, obviously Japan is a highly developed country and well-located in the Northern hemisphere, but Chomsky seems to offer a criteria that is neither development-based nor geographical. From the way he terms it, it reflects that "the North" includes countries whose populations are predominately of European ethnic descent, while those countries of "the South" are everyone else, the anthropological other from the European view. Now, if Chomsky is the only academic who uses the terms North/South in this sense, I'm fine with leaving this article as is, and going back to remove my addition to the "Western World" article. But if not, perhaps we should mention this viewpoint on this page? It seems to me that his must not be a unique viewpoint, as I'd expect "North" and "South" to be somewhat fixed designations (whether geographic or ethnic/historical), not the kind of designations that could ostensibly change with moving development indices. After all, that is the type of divide implied by the old dichotomy between West/Occident and East/Orient; taking the North/South divide in that sense, there certainly are overwhelming developmental trends that have followed from the divide, with Japan being a unique exception.  173.3.41.6 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've heard Japan referred to as part of "the South" 

message: I know this may seem trivial but according to this article, countries that are a part of the 'North' are developed countries. If that's the case, then why are developing countries, like Russia and Turkey, shown on the map to be 'North' countries? Although those countries have huge economies, the article clearly states that;
"As nations become economically developed, they may become part of the "North", regardless of geographical location, while any other nations which do not qualify for "developed" status are in effect deemed to be part of the "South."
202.89.153.10 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure Russia is included as a member of the G8 (note its inclusion at the bottom of North-South_divide#The_North). Turkey is referenced in North-South_divide#Problems_with_defining_the_divide, but I agree that its inclusion is certainly questionable. - Nellis 13:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Those referrences are unsatisfactory and does not fully explain why the aforementioned countries are considered 'North'. This article contradicts itself if it states that "As nations become economically developed, they may become part of the "North", regardless of geographical location, while any other nations which do not qualify for "developed" status are in effect deemed to be part of the "South." and then includes developing countries as being North. By the strictest definiton, only developed countries may be considered North. Most of those countries in the former Soviet Bloc are developing or under-developed economies and although Russia is a member of G8, it is still a developing country if you take the country's Human Development Index into consideration. From what I read, the North and South divide is a divide between countries which are developed and countries which are developing regardless of their geographical position (take Australia and New Zealand for example). I do not want to sound elitist but this is what the article states and it is misleading if developing nations are included. 
202.89.154.142 (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I propose the following:
- USA+CAN+JAP+KOR+EU+EU candidates+EFTA+(partialy) developed CIS
This covers most of the north, and all countries have 10.000 dollars per capita per year at least. Including Turkey and other partially developed Turkic countries (Kazakhstan & Azerbaijan) also helps to show European influence on the cultures, politics and geopolitical aliances of these states compaired to other islamic countries.NeoRetro (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of North and South countries 

message: "The expression "north–south divide" is still in common use, but the terms "North" and "South" are already somewhat outdated. As nations become economically developed, they may become part of the "North", regardless of geographical location, while any other nations which do not qualify for "developed" status are in effect deemed to be part of the "South."[2]"
The assertion that the terms are outdated is not directly suggested by the source given for this.  It's true that the Global North/South divide does not currently (nor has it ever, really) fulfill its purpose with total geographical accuracy, but to use this as justification for calling it "outdated" is to assume that geographical accuracy was a serious goal of the system in the first place, and not merely an anecdotal recognition of the tendency, rather than total certainty, of the north/south divide being geographically accurate.  One of the main reasons these terms achieved widespread use was simply because "North" and "South" are relatively value-neutral terms, as opposed to the old "first, second, third-world" system.  The geographical accuracy of the divide is almost irrelevant, in that case, as the goal is to just get away from the suggestion that some countries are "better" than others.  
While many relevant fields have moved away from the system in recent times, any claim that it's outdated should be supported by a source that not only says that, but explains why in terms that don't require the reader to make an assumption about the purpose of choosing these labels, especially when the labels themselves are suggestive of the idea that geography really is what matters here.  50.128.192.193 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Here, South Africa is listed as in the North, so should we put ZA in the North in the page or not? --YAGN LONG (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a rather odd map.  I can't see what criterion they're using.  It doesn't include all first world states (missing Turkey), nor all the Council of Europe states (missing Turkey and the Caucasus).  It doesn't seem to be based on HDI or nominal or PPP-adjusted GDP per-capita (Turkey and Botswana beat South Africa on all those measures, and both beat the Ukraine on both measures of GDP).  If it's supposed to be cultural, the omission of Turkey, Georgia, and Armenia (and possibly Azerbaijan) is quite odd. And what's up with the Falklands?  Are they supporting Argentina's claim, or saying they're part of the global South (but Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa aren't), or what? Unfortunately, with it being just a map, it's hard to tell what their reasoning is on any of these points. —Quintucket (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa 

message: For some reason we have a list of countries that "International Organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as well as the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), generally tend to agree that the group of majorly developed countries includes the following countries/regions," which began to accumulate countries which not all of these sources would agree are advanced economies.  I removed all those countries which I know to have been part of the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War, excepting Singapore, but that doesn't really make me happy.
To start with, the citation is "see map."  I'm sure I could find the lists for each source, cross-check them, remove/add countries as needed and add the links, but before I do that, I need to ask: is the list really necessary?  Even if I cross-checked and sourced it, what good would it do us that the map doesn't already?  I'm in favor or removing it entirely. —Quintucket (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the "The North" section of the article should be removed entirely. It gives undue weight to that particular map (which should remain in the article, I think), over and above the other maps in the article. The term "The North" is a general concept rather than a concrete list of countries, and this section of the article misrepresents that. Unless someone has a good reason why it should remain, I say axe it. - Nellis 22:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List: The North 

message: The image of the Cold war alliances is clearly wrong. Assuming this is before the fall of Cambodia and Laos to communism. Both countrieS were catagorically allies of United States against the communist countries. This undeniable. They need to be blue. There are also a number of countries who are clealry allies of the west or the communist who are not coloured. I mean South Africa gets coloured but numerous staunch US anti-communist allies in Africa and Soviet allies don't get mentioned? 12:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of alliances 

message: The 3 worlds map is very flawed. Countries such as Ethiopia allied with the US or USSR are not 1st or 2nd world countries at all. The user who created that map modified a map that accurately depicted all 'South' countries as Third world.Noodleki (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: 95% of the North has a functioning educational system. In the South, on the other hand, only 5% of the population has enough food and shelter.
What is a functioning educational system? 95% of what have what? Only 5% of the population has enough food in most countries of the world?
Someone sort this propaganda out. Or I will delete it later. Yes, should be bold and do it yourself, but I really don't have time now to check and research and I don't want to anger people by just deleting stuff and nothing else. I haven't slept for a nychthemeron and don't know enough English.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.136.27.245 (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; this is absurdly unplausible and un-sourced. I've removed it. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "only 5% of the population has enough food" and other bullshit 

message: Absolutely no reason why it should not be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.189.91.64 (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran belongs in the North with other CIS countries and with the Caucasus 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on North–South divide. 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/20110430190841/http://blogs.odi.org.uk/blogs/main/archive/2010/07/22/brazil_south_south_cooperation.aspx to http://blogs.odi.org.uk/blogs/main/archive/2010/07/22/brazil_south_south_cooperation.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515171820/http://www.stwr.net/content/view/43/83/ to http://www.stwr.net/content/view/43/83
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) 05:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/413 we see a case, due to map projections, of higher latitude mappers not understanding lower latitude mappers' difficulties! Jidanni (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what your comment has to do with this article, and what change you propose to make to the article? EMsmile (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is simply related only. Jidanni (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern mappers don't feel southern mappers pains 

message: I took out this section on immigration and migration because I felt it was poorly cited and was steering off-topic towards issues of migration: ++++++
Uneven immigration patterns lead to inequality: in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries immigration was very common into areas previously less populated (North America, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand) from already technologically advanced areas (Germany, United Kingdom, France, Spain, Portugal). This facilitated an uneven diffusion of technological practices since only areas with high immigration levels benefited. Immigration patterns in the twenty-first century continue to feed this uneven distribution of technological innovation. People are eager to leave countries in the South to improve the quality of their lives by sharing in the perceived prosperity of the North. "South and Central Americans want to live and work in North America. Africans and Southwest Asians want to live and work in Europe. Southeast Asians want to live and work in North America and Europe".  ++++++++++
EMsmile (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I took out this section on immigration and migration 

message: I can understand adding Australia and New Zealand as culturally western or the perceptual West but this is clearly stupid and racist just to cut off mostly non white peoples generally please just add Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay because this is no longer about science Nlivataye (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid 

message: Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine along with Belarus are not developed countries, although they are still ranked high on the HDI, I think the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and (Maybe) Oman should be added. Also it seems to make every country in South America, Africa, and all Pacific Island nations Global South, which is probably cause they lack global influence but yes. Jishiboka1 (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries are Missing 

message: I don't see that as Global south.  Seems more like an "other". - Immigrant laborer (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctica? 

message: Cyprus and Turkey are blue, indicating, at least according to the map, they are part of the "global north". Why is Northern Cyprus then part of the global south? It's essentially Turkish territory. 2604:3D08:927F:6D80:B0C3:B63D:6B44:F362 (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There's other issues as well. Why is Antarctica red? It should be grey, as it's not inhabited in the traditional sense, and administered by countries that are largely part of the Global North (other than maybe Chile and Argentina). Also, why are the high-income Gulf States red, but Kazakhstan is blue? We need a proper source of this; this feels arbitrary. Cortador (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map at top of article 

message: The Religion and spirituality section doesn't make all that much sense to me. The first sentence "Spirituality tends to be more widespread in the Global South than in the Global North" is quite a statement, but I would say hardly neutral. I don't quite follow how where a religion came from long before the global south/north divide became a thing is relevant here (also technically  Sikhism originated in Pakistan, not India). The reference to the 2015 nobel seems also odd (the drug didn't win the nobel price and the fact that it was based on something discovered in China a long time ago isn't relevant to me). In short this section seems to contain a bunch of statements that are not all that related to each other and don't really support the subject. DOsinga (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and have removed it. I am copying it below in case someone wants to contest the removal: EMsmile (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks DOsinga (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drop the "Religion and spirituality" section? 

message: Spirituality tends to be more widespread in the Global South than in the Global North. Countries like Nepal and Brazil are known for their ubiquitous religious presence while India is regarded as the birthplace of four of the world's major religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. In 2013, the election of Pope Francis from Argentina marked the first time in history that a pope has been elected from the Global South.
Outside of the major religions, most of the world's indigenous population live in the Global South. Africa is home to more than 3,000 ethnic groups, while Latin America is home to more than 58 million indigenous people spread across 826 indigenous groups. In 2015, the synthesis of an anti-malarial drug using an herb employed in Traditional Chinese Medicine was awarded a Nobel Prize For Medicine.
Notable religions and spiritual traditions to have come from the Global South include:
* Islam - Saudi Arabia
* Hinduism - India
* Buddhism - India
* Sikhism - India
* Taoism - China
* Jainism - India
Pope Francis is the first modern pope from the Global South - There were several early popes from the Roman provinces of Syria (modern Syria and Lebanon) and Africa (Tunisia and coastal Libya). 2600:4040:7669:4700:1A00:716B:D1D3:DEEB (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion and spirituality 

message: "The GDP of the BRICS countries, which are mainly from the Global South, already surpasses that of the G7 club, which is primarily from the Global North."
I traced this source, and it comes back to GDP PPP. This at the very least needs to be stated, but comparing the G7 and BRICS with this metric makes no sense without also dividing by population. I personally think it would be better to compare with Nominal GDP, but if we're using GDP PPP, it should be per capita. Using either GDP PPP per capita or Nominal GDP also puts BRICS back below the G7. 
Long story short, this sentence should be taken off. 
P.S. We also need a source for the sentence before this one. SirShaunIV (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see these edits have already been made now. EMsmile (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we keeping them? I don't personally think they belong, but I don't have enough experience to say for certain. SirShaunIV (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong information 

message: The characterizations put forth in this article are totally out of whack. Consider this sentence: "Most of the countries in the Global South are characterized by low income, dense population, poor infrastructure, and often political or cultural marginalization." Look at population density by country, for heaven's sake. South American countries have a lower population density than North America, Europe or Asia. Also, what does "cultural marginalization" mean? Can this concept by applied to countries like Argentina or Chile, for example? Anybody that has been to Buenos Aires knows that it is far from a "culturally marginalized" metropolis. Also, to redefine the geographic locations by including Australia and New Zealand in the "Global North" is inappropriate. The entire article seems inclined to perpetuate the notion that countries in the Southern hemisphere are poorer and not developed, as if geography was the fundamental factor. Most countries in the world, including those in Africa, actually reside north of the equator. If we forget about geography and redefine the North-South "political" boundaries as the US-Mexican border in North America, and the Mediterranean in Europe, and its projection into Asia - as often done in the news and political analysis - then we realize important political, economic and cultural centers like the Persian and the Egyptian empires (and India) have existed in the "political" South throughout history. I think it is time to drop this nonsense and do a more scholastic work in this area. Jabrana (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that that sentence was not suitable for the lead and have deleted it (the source was actually talking about cities, not whole countries): "Most of the countries in the Global South are characterized by low income, dense population, poor infrastructure, and often political or cultural marginalization." As to your other points, this is just a question of definition: "Global South" is basically a synonym for developing country which is why Australia is not regarded as being part of the Global South. Personally, I prefer "developing countries" but in the literature and on websites, the term "Global South" seems to have gained traction. EMsmile (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just another manifestation of NH bias. North is the default, South is "other" Local Potentate (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterization of "Global South" 

message: The categorisation of Russia in this article confuses me. In the map it is shown as being part of the Global North but in the text it is claimed to be part of the Global South on the basis of the same sources. Should one of these not be changed? 145.127.3.22 (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia