Talk:Third World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Third World article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Tropics effect on the dark peoples

It's a known fact that the jungle peoples of the dark continents are less developed mentally than other humans, but would the heat have a degenerative effect on their brains? This may be an accurate explanation for the state of the third world. This goes along with natural body odor/heat related odor with the jungle people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everlasting in Union (talk • contribs) 03:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement removed from article

I removed this from the article:

Furthermore, it could be wrongly assumed that "developing world/country" is developing at all. Many developing nations, in fact, are not developing in any meaningful way what-so-ever. There simply is no path of progressive industrialization or economic advancement occurring.

In addition to the lack of a source, the wording seemed to do more harm than good. The basic point -- that a developing country isn't necessarily developing -- needs to be made, but not in a way that would be like slapping those countries in the face. - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba

Why is Cuba second world?? It should be 3rd or fourth if possible. I've been to Cuba and trust me its like Haiti but no democracy. Please someone change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.122.88 (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand the term second world. In any case, we work on reliable sources, not trusting one another to be right. J Milburn 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor you happen to understand the notion of fourth world, which refers to indigenous societies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.32.27 (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] India

why should india be among third world countries?? whatever maybe your resources. it is an offending term to a country which in all respects is really "developing". 59.182.16.88 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC) DK 59.182.16.88 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not - read the caption for the map - that was during cold war time, in the other map - the one that's present day time - India is second world.--danielfolsom 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is India considered a nation until the 17th Century? The Mughal Empire never held all of modern day India.

There are precious few countries whose borders have remained exactly the same over the past 300 years that way why should anyone have a history of more than 300 years ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.198.65 (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

Hcobb (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Spotlight

To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Cite all sources in typical format

[edit] Newly industrialized countries

Countries that have more advanced economies than developing nations in the Third World,but have not yet attained the level of developed countries in the First World, are grouped under the term Newly Industrialized Countries or NICs. These countries are: China, India, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, Turkey, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and the GCC states. However countries that are in the N-11 and are emerging markets such as Senegal, Kenya and Egypt are moving towards becoming New Industrialized Countries.

  • Needs sources, also needs to be checked to make sure this is indeed related to the topic. (does it really need a whole section, or can we put the modern terms in a section by itself.) —— Eagle101Need help? 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gap between First and Third Worlds

This is just a note to myself - i'll add it in soon.

[In 1998] the total wealth of the world’s three richest individuals is greater than the combined gross domestic product (1) of the 48 poorest countries - a quarter of all the world’s states.

—[1]

--danielfolsom 00:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on blank sections

Please don't think us insane. Its just easier to organize things this way. If anyone would like to write a section please do! —— Eagle101Need help? 02:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development

[edit] Culture

[edit] Foreign aid

[edit] Foreign debt

[edit] Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico is no longer a third world country. I live there, and I can comfortably say that this country has stop being a third world country a few decades ago. We have our own democratic government, similar to United States, industries, respectable universities and colleges, technology, among other things. Our society began evolving ever since the United States took ownership. Xach 21:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Xach, Puerto Rico is not a country, third world or otherwise. It is a territory of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.16.47 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third World Countries

Hi im Emma im 13 and doing a project at school about Third World Countries. Ive found out which ones are which but i dont really understand any of this! What is the difference between all of the 3? Please speak in English/that ill understand!!! HELP!

[edit] MEXICO is not third world, it's member of OECD

LOOK ... MEMBERS OF OCDE ARE NOT THIRD WORLD. PLEASE CHANGE --189.182.35.31 03:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mapa de los Estados miembros de la OCDE
Mapa de los Estados miembros de la OCDE

The term has different meanings. Some people use the original definitions, some people use it to refer to currently poorly-developed countries. It would be nice if we could find an authoritative reference, but I suspect it's too informal for one to exist. It seems to me that it's no longer commonly used at all so perhaps the artical should be written in the past tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallog (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? I hear the term used quite frequently. I rarely have any discussion of politics where the the term doesn't come up at least once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.253.57 (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent contradiction in the origin of the term 'Third World'

Has anyone else noticed that this article states two different origins of the term Third World? In the etymology section it first states that Third World was used to define countries not aligned with the Capitalist west or Communist east, therefore being called the Third World. And next it says that the term is a reference to the French Tiers État, third estate. Is the origin disputed or should one of these be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorf (talk • contribs) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The first paragraph

Perhaps I should edit the article directly, but I'm new to editing wiki pages so I thought I'd try something as a discussion first (and I didn't want to mess up the main page - especially not the opening paragraph.

Current first para. "The term Third World is now deprecated, and has been replaced with the more politically correct "developing country". It is a term used, along with First World and Second World, (now more commonly called "developed countries"), to broadly categorize the nations of the Earth to three social, political, and economic divisions. It is also known in some academic contexts as the Global South."

1. There's a single-plural mix up in the first sentence. It should either be Third World = Developing World [a 'developing country' is one country; 'developing countries' could be some but not all individual countries; world implies it's the whole lot]. This single-plural mix up is quite common in the article.

2. I question what it means to state that the term Third World is 'depreciated.' 2a: I don't understand what is means for a word to be 'depreciated.' I would assume this means the phrase is no longer used (not true - see next point). The only other thing I think it could mean is that a decision has been taken to no longer use the phrase. I know that many organisations have done this, but there is no 'controller' of the English language and nobody with the authority to depreciate a word or phrase. 2b: The term is still in written usage (e.g. the Fairtrade Foundation label on Fairtrade goods in the UK state "A better deal for Third World producers; there's the Third World Network; and search forums and you'll find the term is still in use. [As an aside, my university degree certificate says I studied 'Third World Development Studies' - me me at least the term 'Third World' will be in use for as long as I have to tell people about my qualifications]

3. I'm not too sure about the describing the term as 'more politically correct' is completely neutral. From the wikipedia page on 'developing countries': Critics believe that at times the word "developing" is a misnomer. In the case of countries ravaged by European colonialism, the word "re-developing" may be more accurate since there were successful economic systems prior to colonialism. Allegedly due to ethnocentrism, Western analysts generally deem these prior interactions invalid and do not consider them "developed". The premise is that "to develop" is the same thing as "to develop in a western manner".

Suggestion for first para: The term Third World originates from the 1950's and is used to describe the poorest countries in the world. The concept of the First, Second, Third, (and sometimes Fourth) World's is used to broadly categorize the nations of the Earth to three social, political, and economic divisions. The term Third World is often seen as inappropriate, and the term 'developing world' is preferred by many people and organisations. It is also known in some academic contexts as the Global South.

What does anybody think? Is this OK, or am I completely off-track? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggillions (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey and surrounding countries in Europe

This country is First World? They don't have running water and they bomb themselves everyday. Also, the Eastern European countries, more than half of Europe, are way more developed than Turkey. Where do you guys get this evidence from? Can someone point me to a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.70.159 (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you 100% this only has 20% of pop that thinks it is western and says its european the fact is it is a third world country with about 20-30% of ppl with comparable I world lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.198.65 (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Possible overlap

The page "Less economically developed countries" brings one here, while "Less economically developed country" takes one to developing country. I suppose there is a difference in quantity, but I don't see why that should lead to different articles, exactly, nor why there are two articles on basically the same thing. (According to me, someone who knows little about this subject matter.) I think my query is whether it would not be better to send people interested in this concept directly to developing country, as this article seems to be just about the term, rather than the actual Third World. I find this rather confusing- that the article is about the term, rather than the actual Third World, but then neither do I see the use for two articles on the same subject. Perhaps a merge is in order? Loggie (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PRC

The PRC is a third-world nation. Mexico is arguably a third-world nation as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)