Jump to content

Talk:First World

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleFirst World was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 20, 2009Good article nomineeListed
March 2, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

SOC 0317 Discussion

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


hello. everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I have my research and articles ready, but I am working a double shift today so barely have time to get on. I will post them by tonight (Wednesday, Oct 14), so no worries!! Kmm131 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey All,
I think we need to move our outline to the "current talk page." The old outline has been "archived" and cannot be edited. Do you all agree? If so, I can move it now.
JFA7 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmm131 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, thats what I was thinking because I cannot edit so I have it copied and can try and paste it on the new page, however all the neatness is gone and it looks like large paragraphs. The spacing and bullets are not there anymore, so i deleted it. Mln30 (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa, the outline is now posted on the "current talk page" and can be edited. JFA7 (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey All,
Can we meet sometime this week/weekend? What days/times work for everyone? JFA7 (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello everyone. Hope you all had a good Halloween weekend. I was thinking if everyone can meet after class tomorrow it would be good to discuss a detailed plan for the next two weeks. Since Piotr said the article needs to be ready for review by November 16th, I think it would also be good to meet consistently. I will see you guys soon. Kmm131 (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably meet tomorrow after class Kate. JFA7 (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey All - Don't forget to write on Piotr's talk page and let him know that you have made edits to the article, and that we are ready for him to review it! JFA7 (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOC 0317 - First World Outline

[edit]

We are adopting this article for a educational assignment for our sociology course! Rgg6 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A preliminary plan for our assignment: revised on 10/30/09

1.Overall Information[Melisssa]

  • Classifications of first world countries
    • GDP Index
    • Adult Literacy
    • Life Expectancy Index
    • Education Index
    • Urban Populations
    • GNP
    • High Income Economies
    • HDI Index
  • Define HDI index
  • Define High Income Economies based on research
  • Measuring first world countries
    • Human Development Index-dealing with global policies [1]
    • World Bank-differentiating countries based on data such as GDP, and GNP. [2]
  • Need to research more in order to find different acceptable cutoff points for the different classifications for the first world countries

Mln30 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2.Three World Model [Ragini]

3.Current Relationship between the First World and the other worlds

Rgg6 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC) 4. Recent Changes (based on research)[reply]

Outline Posted By: Rgg6 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC) / Recent Changes Section Edited By: JFA7 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@JFA - one thing that was mentioned when we got our article approved was to make sure when we talk about pros/cons under globalization we are linking it to first world and not going off onto a tangent...just throwing that out there. Rgg6 (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

All - Here are some links to topics which should fit into our outline somewhere:

Also, does anyone have any suggestions for what else could go in my section (WWII-Cold War)? We might have to reapportion work so that we have more equal amounts Jsf26 (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Kmm131 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I am also posting some links that would be helpful to all of us during research. The last site has a lot of information, you just have to really search well.[reply]

Kmm131 (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree since we have removed and added some headings, we will need to change work load appropriately.

@Kate - please post a message to Piotr's talk page to let him know our plan is on our talk page so that he knows [when you are done with your part] Rgg6 (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey All, just wanted to update you on what all Piotr told us in class on Friday. He suggests that we do a little bit everyday [i.e. he says, don't do all your research first then sit down and write your section all at once]

That makes it more difficult to catch mistakes, overlaps or holes in or research. Doing a little bit continuously will also make it easier to get his guidance, guidance from other Wikipedians and eachother. I also added a section below where we can explain our changes or drop a line about why we deleted something [ I think this is the Wiki way...] Rgg6 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ragini, I think that is good advice. That way we won't leave everything for last minute. The only think is if we are going to do it this way I think we need to sit down and have a meetins because even though we all have our assigned sections there could be a lot of overlap (especially between Jess and I, and the concept of globalization). We can set up a meeting date this week though. Kmm131 (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this version of the "world theory" that I thought may be interesting to put in as like one sentence in my three world model section...tell me if you think it is relavent! [1] Rgg6 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I know we discussed putting our edits first on the Discussion page...but I went ahead and put it on the actual page because putting it on here was giving me trouble in terms of the flow of ideas on the actual article because I couldn't remember what was already there...SORRY! Please comment me if you have any suggestions... Rgg6 (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ particularly Jessica - I wasn't able to find more information regarding the transfer of info from first to third world countries, so i have left it as a general statement..I emailed the library to ask them to help me find the full article of that abstract I linked... so I did the immigration part only. I found some stuff for the environmental part so Ill start that section. Rgg6 (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for environmental impact: http://books.google.com/books?id=I0Vb8-3Mt38C&pg=PT6&dq=environmental+impact+of+first+world#v=onepage&q=first%20world&f=false

Sources for world politics: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090927220621AA8dXEh good article on how they fixed the kyoto protocol to accomodate the "Global Development Right" http://books.google.com/books?id=LQYFAQAAIAAJ&q=first+world+manipulates+third+world&dq=first+world+manipulates+third+world http://books.google.com/books?id=PCbVkCkmCoIC&dq=first+world+manipulates+third+world&source=gbs_navlinks_s

@everyone: sorry for my lack of participation recently, as you're all aware, my computer has been dead for the past weeks. My edits are now complete, but I'm having similar issues as JFA with blocked links. I know my one section needs a reference, and I have it, Wiki just won't let me use it. I'll investigate more into this issue and see what I can find out to fix it. I'm also aware that I might need to tidy up my references or something, so I'll be asking you all how to do that the next time we meet in person.

Explanations/Comments on New Edits

[edit]

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)[reply]

I have added some information regarding inter-world relations. There are currently no sources there because I wrote the section based on my own knowledge from coursework. I will add sources that verify the information. In addition, this section will have lots of information regarding current relations. Rgg6 (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly went through and fixed any errors in grammar or spelling that I noticed. I also added a new subheading under International Relations called Development Theory. Jsf26 (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please review the edits I made to the "Other Indicators" section? I added a few statements about how the UN categorized the worlds, but I feel like it could fit in better somewhere else. Maybe in the Three World Model section? Thoughts? Jsf26 (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High income economies

[edit]
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)[reply]

Piotrus, as I know you are from Poland let us look at this from the perspective of Poland. During the Cold War Poland was a member of the Second World, with the end of the Cold War, clearly the Second World ceased to exist, in which case using the terms First and Third World make no sense. Those countries such as Poland which have joined the EU and NATO, can be said to be in the West if the EU is in the West but where are the Ukraine (a member of neither) and Turkey (a member of NATO but not the EU)? I suggest that there are a lot of more appropriate articles into which the information about High income economies economies could be incorporated.

Terms like "The West" have more than one meaning, for example the English language press often take it to mean the US, Britain, and any English speaking country or other country from NATO which joins them in bombing some none English speaking country.

Although First World is still sometimes used its usage is rather like Great Power something that had a specific meaning before World War I but had lost its meaning by the end of World War II and the bipolar world that resulted from the war. It is not that Great Power is no longer used but terms like G8 and G20 are more precise and carry more meaning than the old term.

I suggest that this article is kept focused on the Cold War usage along with Second World and Third World and the more recent developments are placed in other more appropriate articles. -- PBS (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Edits in October 2009

[edit]

Rgg6, I've undone your edit-all Wikipedia articles start with lead paragraphs. Replacement of Wikilike text with unWikilike text is not acceptable. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on lead paragraphs: see WP:LEAD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. We do have a "lead" paragraph planned for the article - but somebody else is doing that. How can I work on the three world model section [which has much of what is in the current lead paragraph] before my group mate has down the lead paragraph [which we plan to have different content than the current paragraph]? Rgg6 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have redone my first edit under its own category "Three World Model." This article is currently organized very differently than how we envision it to be after we have developed it. Therefore, the lead paragraphs say much the same as I have developed in this category. At this point, I can not fix that without knowing the full extent to which the article will take on later... I am leaving it as it is. If you have a way to fix this, please do. Rgg6 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rgg6 I am reverting you last edit because you have added a whole section without citing one source for the opinions expressed in it. Why not include citations to the reliable secondary sources on which you build your analysis? -- PBS (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS - Can you please stop undoing all of our work? As YOU KNOW - we are working on this for an educational assignment, and therefore will be adding to this article piece by piece. You cannot expect us to throw a section of an article up there in its entirety... it's going to take time. We are appreciative of your CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and feedback, but please... undoing are work 30 seconds after we post it is neither constructive or necessary. JFA7 (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JFA7-Wikipedia is not here to be your classroom or assignment or experiment. If you want to do test edits, there's a sandbox for that, or you can create a branch page off your user page. This is a public encyclopedia open to all, and Philip Baird Shearer is well within his rights to remove unencyclopedic text. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@everybody - I have put back the section and have added sources. @PBS - thanks for this time giving some advice on how to better rather than just telling us we are wrong.
@Chris - maybe you can give us some constructive criticism / advice also? You seem to know a lot. Rgg6 (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rgg6, there are still problems with that section. For a start please read WP:SOURCES and then explain why http://www.dailysoft.com/berlinwall/history/why-the-berlinwall-was-built.htm is a reliable source. Then please explain how that source supports the sentence that immediately precedes it: "In order to stop their citizens in East Berlin from having too much exposure to Western and Capitalistic wealth and happiness, the Berlin Wall was put up within the actual city."
Rgg6, there are fundamental problems with the other additions as well. For example one of the sources cited in the "Currently" section is from "1978-04-00" which is a cold war source. Without that there is just one source, which from which you are synthesising you pros for example write "Information about the comparatively higher living standards of the First World come through television, commercial advertisements and foreign visitors to their countries. This exposure causes two changes: a) living standards in some Third World countries rises and b) this exposure creates hopes and many from Third World countries immigrate - both legally and illegally - to these First World countries in hopes to attain that living standard and prosperity. In fact, this immigration is the "main contributor to the increasing populations of U.S. and Europe."" Yet what the source says is "Immigration from low-impact countries is now the main contributor to the increasing populations of the US and Europe." According to what I have gleaned off the internet Jared Diamond is an evolutionary biologist, and as the saying goes "one swallow does not make a summer", do you have multiple independent sources that also use the terms "first world" and "third world" rather than say "developed" and "underdeveloped" as by this definition as used by Diamond is Ireland first world and Turkey third word? and where is Poland? -- PBS (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some good references, but a few need to be improved. This is indeed one of them. Other references using websites need formating with the information such as author, publisher, and access date.
Not sure that it is a reliable source www.dailysoft.com it does not seem to have any type of editorial board. -- PBS (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I. This could be acceptable in some fringe cases, but I am sure that Berlin Wall related info can be sourced to a ton of reliable publications, so I will be fully expecting this temporary reference to be replaced by something better in the coming weeks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Philip, please note that this article will be undergoing much development this month. We all appreciate your constructive criticism, so please keep at it, but please also keep in mind most editors working on that article are relatively inexperienced when it comes to Wikipedia.
And Poland would be part of the Second World... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the problem, Poland can not be part of the second world as the second world does not exist, and why since the end of the second world first and third world labels are not much used. -- PBS (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poland was part of the Second World. Post-communist (former Eastern Bloc) still are, although as you are well aware of, the term Second World has been replaced by others (such as the developing countries or semi-periphery countries). This article should certainly discuss the Cold War-era Second World. Wouldn't you agree? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, Thanks for helping me hone in on the issues with my sections. As Piotr says, this is the draft form and I DEFINITELY plan to put more credible sources - I needed to get my section up and those were the sources I could find quickly. Also, does every sentence need a source - is there no room for inference and non-blatant conclusions on Wikipedia? [a legitimate question]. Can you please clarify your question about the quote/part from Diamond? Thanks, Rgg6 (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably each sentence should be referenced. We should avoid drawing our own conclusions (WP:OR) but instead cite conclusions drawn by scholars and other reliable source we are citing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to PBS asking for more sources to back up Diamond's source. In the beginning of the article it is established that while the original definition of First World is no longer valid, there are other factors that that are generally accepted to bind "First World" countries together in today's age. One of those things is development. Hence, even if the source used "developed" and not explicitly "First World" it would be appropriate and relevant. Rgg6 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources still need to be reformatted and such - I have done a majority of them...it will be nice to get some help ;) Rgg6 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization in the First World

[edit]

I am having trouble finding credible sources w/ information on Globalization in respect to the First World. Does anybody know where I can look? Right now I have taken a pretty "broad" approach to defining Globalization in respct to the First World, but I would like to get deeper (more specific), if possible.

Also - another question? If we find information that we would like to include in our article, and we go to cite it, and Wiki Spam Filter blocks to the reference link, how should we go about include the information if we cannot cite the source?

Thanks!

JFA7 (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your first question: where have you looked?
That's just the thing. I don't know where to look. I've searched Globalization in the First World, and what I have on the article now is what i've been able to find. The area of Globalization is just too broad, i feel. JFA7 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Re: your second question: wiki spam filters sites usually for a good reason; very rarely a reliable source is filtered. You can post the link here without the http part, and we can look at it more closely and see if it is one of those rare cases the site is actually reliable. Still, I'd highly advice you to try to cite another source instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a classroom

[edit]
  • 09:40, 2 November 2009 Kintetsubuffalo (21,339 bytes) (this is not your damn classroom-use someone's userpage and learn to read the talk header!)
  • 09:41, 2 November 2009 Kintetsubuffalo (12,449 bytes) (this is not your damn classroom-use someone's userpage and learn to read the talk header!)

I have revert the two edits above, but I do agree with Kintetsubuffalo's sentiments. I suggest that comments like these would be better placed at something like User talk:Piotrus/1 SOC 0317. Unless anyone objects (and Piotrus agrees) I will move the sections which are inter student communication to that page. -- PBS (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS - We have comments like these on the discussion page because Piotr has asked our class to do so. We prefer to use e-mail, but merely are doing what our professor has asked. He wants to see our daily interactions & communication with each other. JFA7 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS and JFA - I propose a compromise (that would hopefully fit with what Piotrus is looking for). In the diff posted by PBS, the first comment could be made on a userpage, while the second could be made here. The first is one student directly addressing another, so is more appropriate for a user talk page (and I think that Piotrus has those pages watchlisted as well, though you should ask him to confirm), while the second is one student addressing the group and is somewhat related to the article at hand. Assuming I've gauged Piotrus' intentions correctly, would that solution be acceptable to everyone? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If editors of a given article want to coordinate a meeting for researching that article and discuss it on the article's talk page, that seems perfectly within talk page guidelines to me. Removing them with uncivil edit summaries seems quite contrary to our policies of WP:CIVIL and more crucially, WP:BITE. That said, some comments can and should be made instead on individual editor's talk pages. Think about it like this: is the comment addressed to everyone reading this page or just the group members? If just the group members, use their talk pages. If it is for everyone, post it here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, the second comment is not a general comment it is addressed to a group of people, who exist as a group outside Wikipedia, about a specific task which is not directly related to the development of this page. Such comments should be on a class talk page, and I would suggest that page should be under the project co-ordinator. If that is then watched by the class, the problem is solved.
That two editors independent of the class have made it known that they do not think it appropriate for this page to be used for such transactions, suggests that posting such messages here is not collegiate. The group page, (that I have suggested a solution) would solve the problem with little to no degradation to the class's communications, so please implement it Piotrus. If it does not work as well then with the next group assignment you can then say "We tried it last time with the First World class assignment but it didn't work very well because ..." -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did note that it was addressed to the group, and while I would argue that the second comment is related to the development of this article, I can see where you're coming from here, and I think that the students could use their user talk pages for some of what they're putting here (personal comments, etc). I'll leave the decision on what goes where to Piotrus, their instructor. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree here with one another :) I hope that the students are reading this section and will keep personal group-only comments to their own talk pages. But comments related to improving this article should be made here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early draft review

[edit]

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 {{fact}}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)[reply]


Responses to Early Draft Review

[edit]

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)[reply]


John, we talked after class today after Piotr telling us we need to be more specific to our topics. Your section on globalization is really good, we just think it needs to relate more to the First World. If you could do that sometime over the weekend it would be great! Thanks.

Kmm131 (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the weasel words, I have taken out what I could see in the Three World Model and beginning of the Relationships section. I am also working on putting in more citations... after all the citations in the above sections are put in, I will then do the foot note thing with the same source multiple pages, and same source multiple times...

@Melissa - you need more and better sources on your section! Rgg6 (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was asked for more comments:

  • from the lead: "Second World, and Third World were used to divide nations into three broad categories...". Fine, but this implies those terms are not used. If so, the lead should also briefly mention how this usage was phased out (something that should be discussed in the body in more detail, of course)
  • "It was eventually pointed out..." - weasel wording. Who pointed that out?
  • WP:LEAD should summarize the contents of the article, not introduce new information. "was under the Soviet Union's sphere of influence but was not communist, nor was it a member of the Warsaw Pact." is an example of information which is present only in the lead, but not in the body of an article (it is also unreferenced...).
  • "Overview" is a bad title section. Leads are overviews. That section needs much attention, as while it contains relevant information, it needs a new title, and likely some refocusing to go along with it. It also has large unreferenced parts.
  • "Shuswap Chief George Manuel" - why is it relevant that he is a Shuswap Chief??? We often clarify when a cited person is somebody notable in a given context, usually an academic. Being a tribal chief is not the case.
  • regarding the relevance of various sections: info in overview seems relevant but the section needs refocusing per my comments above. Info in "Post communism" seems irrelevant; it describes the disappearance of the second world and raise of the fourth world - what you should do instead is to describe what happened to the term first world after 1989 (you can leave a brief discussion of what happened to the other terms, but it should be a minor addition to your primary subject). Regarding the "Globalization", while Globalization and the FW is an important subject, the section seems to veer of topic and discusses Globalization itself. For example, the pros and cons from Business Week are irrelevant - the source does not discusses pros and cons of the globalization for the FW, but just the pros and cons of globalization in general. Same for the opening definitions. That section has potential, but only if it makes clear what are the connections between globalization and the First World. As your article is structured now, it may be a good idea to consider merging that section into the "Relationships with the other worlds" section, and writing a section on globalized economy of the first world and how it is connected to the other worlds; you may want to use some world system theory here.
  • last but not least, please use a spellchecker; I can see certain sections (HDI) were not spellchecked...

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Some sources: [3], [4] (see also the entry for First World in volume 1), [5] (ditto), [6] (read the intro parts), [7].. I think you shouldn't have that much trouble with the sources; quite a few of them discuss the history of the First World term (and I just scratched a tip of an inceberg of publications that discuss those terms). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a bit about varying definitions, and quoted some specific people and definitions, [Variance]. This would be better if it was integrated into the section it is currently a subsection of... Rgg6 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Images for our page: [first world countries map] [little boy sitting by berlin wall] [distribution of malaria risk] [human development index] Rgg6 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of veering the globalization section back on track, I think the following few points should be addressed only:

-first world MNCs - World Trade Organization, tariffs/protectionism

-outsourcing - jobs go to cheap labor in third world countries, population in first world countries are left competing for jobs --> unemployment

-outsourcing and mncs combined makes goods cheaper and allows them to be widely accessible in first world countries, i.e. consumer society

immigration was mentioned, but I think it is adequately discussed in the "currently" section of interworld relations. What do you guys think? Rgg6 (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


@everyone: are we keeping that extremely large chart in the page? because i think it is throwing everything off... pictures are overlapping and whatnot... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFA7 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@everyone: I removed the first paragraph under "Environmental Impacts" due to its lack of citations. I didn't want to because I think the section deserves to be there, but I was unable to find sufficient sources to back it up despite a good amount of searching. If anyone else is able to find support for it, please undo my deletion and add citations :)

@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)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:First World/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

This looks like a good article, but I'm not going so far as to suggest that it is a Good Article, yet, for the two reasons given below.

Firstly, the bolding of every occurence of First World is extremely annoying, as is the wikilinking of every occurency of Third World, NATO, United Kingdom, etc, etc, etc. The policy for linking is given in Wikipedia:Linking. What you have here is excessive overlinking; and it is extremely annoying. None of the terms Third World, NATO, United Kingdom, etc, etc, need to be linked more than once, usually at the first occurence. Secondly, I will be assessing this article against WP:WIAGA, so the excessive bolding and overlinking could be regarded as non-compliant with WP:MoS.

I've not checked any of the references; and will be doing so later on. However, you appear to have a comprehensive, well-illustrated, well-referenced article. There are two {citation needed} tags that need to be addressed.

At this point I'm putting the review "On Hold". Once the debolding of First World, other than the first occurence in the WP:Lead, and the excess over linking have been removed I will continue with the review.

However, congratulations on the quality of the article. Its a good article (if not a Good Article). Pyrotec (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have taken off all the multiple links I found and all bolded First Worlds besides the first one. Rgg6 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through one more time and checked if there were any other multiple links, I also did link some things that were not linked but fall under the wiki guidelines. Maybe we could get a third pair of eyes just to go over it for sure. Kmm131 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had done that too, I just hadn't posted it on the talk page :-) Jsf26 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll now go through the article section by section in more depth, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Here, I will only be concentrating on "problems", which all appear to be fairly minor; all the good points will, however, be covered at the end of the reivew. Pyrotec (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definition
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - The first sentence seems to hang in mid air, i.e "After World War II the world split into two large geopolitical blocs". It needs to be finished using "labels" of your choice, e.g. ....two large geopolitical blocs, e.g. eastern bloc and west bloc (communisium / captialism).[reply]
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - You mention the Cold War and then talk about the "term First World was highly used" and in the next sentence say that it is dated. Could you provide a date (probably a decade, e.g. 1950s, 1990s?) when the label First World came into use.[reply]
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - Ref 1 is a broken web link. It is usual to add the date that the web link was first accessed. A template can be used, see Template:Cite web.[reply]
Fixed Jsf26 (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human Development Index -
  • Three World model -

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed Ref 9, but under Ref 13, there is a "retrieved date" written there...was it something else that was wrong with Ref 13? Rgg6 (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion, Ragini, I think I had fixed Ref 13 before you looked over it. Jsf26 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relationships with the other worlds -
I fixed Ref 19, Ref 20 has page numbers on it Rgg6 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 20 (Powaski, Ronald (1998)) is fixed, but not 19 (Bonds, John (2002)). Pyrotec (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 19 now has page number Rgg6 (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that Jsf26 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Globalization -
Fixed Jsf26 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (I think) Jsf26 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 45, 46, 48 & 50 are the same web link, but as it is a 44-page pdf file, so I'll be needing page numbers.
Ref 42 is now properly formatted but still needs a page number. However, it should make fixing all of the other citations from the same source (but presumably different pages) easier. Jsf26 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (I think) Jsf26 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, "...series of ..." Rgg6 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (Now Ref 55) Jsf26 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is intended to do two things: act as an introduction to the article (and it does not reasonably well); it should also summarise the main points in the article, and it does not do that very well. I would sugggest that the lead needs to be about twice its current length. Look at the Contents, for instance, see what is listed there and consider whether there is summary of it in the lead.
Lead has been augmented as per your suggestions. Please let us know if there is more to be done with it. Rgg6 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I've done my review of the article. There are corrective actions to be done, so I'm putting the review On Hold. You have a week or so to fix them, if you need more time you can ask. I have this page on my watch list, so I will be keeping an eye on progress. Pyrotec (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@All: I cleaned up and reformatted some citations. However, not all of the later ones use a template - is it our goal for all of them to do so? I also attempted to follow Sanguis Sanies's suggestions, but then I realized our formatting would make it extremely difficult. Does anyone have an opinion and what we should do about that? Jsf26 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify what is required. I'm asking that the necessary information be provided in the references; and for web links that includes a date of access. That can be done without the use of a {citation} template merely by adding the information in the correct sequence. So in short, it is your choice whether you use the template, or not. Pyrotec (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@All - I have fixed things in my section or the things I worked on. I put comments under the bullet if I addressed it. Rgg6 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrotec - I see a green check mark - is that something we need to do, or is that something you do once you are satisfied with the correction? Also, for the lead, do you think it may be a good idea to have each person summarize their section in 1-3 sentences and then we merge them properly as for the summary? I am also confused about the "introduction." The whole first part of the article is essentially the introduction....? Rgg6 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is easier if I do the green ticks, as once I am happy this article gets GA-status. However, I'm quite happy for anyone to add a comment underneath my comments, for example:

* Ref 45, 46, 48 & 50 are the same web link, but as it is a 44-page pdf file, so I'll be needing page numbers.

  • Done (or why is this needed). Rgg69999 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There were a whole series of GATT agrements, this article is written as if there were only one.
Fixed, "...series of ..." Rgg6 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ref 58 is not fully cited (try clicking on the show full citation link at the top of the Jstor page).
  • The whole of the text above the Contents box is known as the WP:Lead, hence my comment - "this is intended to do two things: act as an introduction to the article (and it does not reasonably well); it should also summarise the main points in the article, and it does not do that very well. I would sugggest that the lead needs to be about twice its current length. Look at the Contents, for instance, see what is listed there and consider whether there is summary of it in the lead".
  • I would suggest that the "introduction" part of the Lead is: "The concept of the First World first originated during the Cold War, where it was used to describe countries that were aligned with the United States. These countries were democratic and capitalistic. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the term First World took on a new meaning that was more applicable to the times. Since its original definition, the term First World has come to be largely synonymous with developed and/or highly developed countries (depending on which definition is being used)"; and the rest is summary. The divide in the Lead between Introduction and Summary is not all that important - I just consider that more "summary" is needed.
  • Does that clarify what I'm asking for, and what you are free to choose to do?
Yes, I understand the expectations of the Lead now. Thanks, Rgg6 (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was reviewing, mostly, your article as it existed on 18 November 2009: this version [8]. Some of the recent edits have changed the reference numbers. Pyrotec (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well-referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well-referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well-illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well-illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Well done. You now have GA-status. Congratulations on this team effort. Pyrotec (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using templates and <ref name= > makes it much easier

[edit]

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 <ref name= > and the use of citation templates.

The most common ref you are going to use for this article is {{cite book}} 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 {{cite book}}.

So using Globalization in World History as an example you would fill it out like this: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins |last2= |first2= |editor1-first= |editor1-last= |editor1-link= |others= |title=Globilization in World History|trans_title= |url= |format= |accessdate= |edition= |series= |volume= |date= |year=2003|month= |origyear= |publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]] |language= |isbn=0393979423|oclc= |doi= |id= |page= |pages= |trans_chapter= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= |ref= |bibcode= |laysummary= |laydate= |separator= |postscript= |lastauthoramp=}}</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: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins|title=Globilization in World History|year=2003|publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]]|isbn=0393979423}}</ref>


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 <ref name= > 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 <ref name=hopkins/> So now every time that you want to reference Globalization in World History all you need to do is put in <ref name=hopkins/>.

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 3</ref>[2] and this; <ref name=hop21>Hopkins 2003, page 21</ref>[3], then whenever you want to ref page three you simply put in <ref name=hop3/>[2] and to ref page 21 use <ref name=hop21/>[3]

Then we need to split the references section at the bottom in two: ==Notes== and ==References== in ==Notes== we'll stick the {{reflist}} template, and since it is a particularly large amount of references will split it into 4 columns by writing it like this: {{reflist|4}} 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: {{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins|title=Globilization in World History|year=2003|publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]]|isbn=0393979423}}. 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

[edit]
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Worlds_Theory
  2. ^ a b Hopkins 2003, page 3
  3. ^ a b Hopkins 2003, page 21

References

[edit]

Hopkins, A.G. (2003). Globilization in World History. New York City: Norton. ISBN 0393979423.

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)[reply]

GA Review: Corrections

[edit]

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)[reply]

References under Globalization fixed...Kmm131 (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Globalize

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Anyway, I made a change now that I hope will make it more acceptable. Lampman (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We are working on fixing the globalization section. Rgg6 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Jon, I've sent a message regarding another good source for WTO. Rgg6 (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was probably better to delete that section. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a "Pro and con" section, just that it should be a prose section making a synthesis of several sources, not just a bullet-point list lifted wholesale from one source, relating only to one country. Off the top of my head, I'd suggest Joseph Stiglitz' Globalization and Its Discontents and Making Globalization Work, Fences and Windows by Naomi Klein and Development as Freedom by Amartya Sen, for a start. Also, there are still some naked URLs in the references. This should be fixed in an article of GA status. Lampman (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill

[edit]

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)[reply]

These statements in the articles have sources, can you provide some sources for your comments? Rgg6 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have added a parenthetical note to clarify that Rgg6 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, which source is the note based on? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the source up so now the note has a source (9) Rgg6 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think that's fine now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few sentences regarding Churchill's Iron Curtain speech. Rgg6 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can you take another look at the temp page? JFA7 (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's developing in the right direction. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First map

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The first image

[edit]

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)[reply]

Fourth world

[edit]

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)[reply]

Angola

[edit]

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))[reply]

I don't think that that map is referring to developed vs. developing nations. Elockid (Talk) 23:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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))[reply]

Is there a 'Fourth World'

[edit]

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)[reply]

Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Third World

[edit]

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)[reply]

Portugal being part of the 1st world

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

POV

[edit]

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) PS if this is a Good Article, G-d save me from having to read bad ones![reply]

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)[reply]

The EU paragraphs under Globalization

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too much focus on the Cold War

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of countries

[edit]

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)[reply]

Sweden

[edit]

Is Sweden not considered a First World Country? It a very developed industrialized country. BreoncoUSA1 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. El_C 18:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the USA still be considered "first world"?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Error

[edit]

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)[reply]

This article is wrong and unhelpful

[edit]

The general and by far most widely used understanding of First World/Second World/Third World has long been about economics, not geopolitics:

  • First World: the wealthiest nations.
  • Third World: the poorest nations.
  • Second World: a fuzzy area in-between First World and Third World. Countries that are too wealthy to be considered Third World but not wealthy enough to be conisidered First World.

This has been true since at least the early 1970s when I learned about these terms in US public schools, read about them in newspapers, heard about them on television news, and discussed them with other people.

To the extent these terms are used to mean NATO/Warsaw Pact/Unaligned, that is a very specialised, perhaps obsolete usage that is largely unknown to the general population. It might make sense to mention that usage in the article, but making it the ONLY (or even the primary) usage described renders the article incorrect and unhelpful. Greg Lovern (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an outdated classification, but it was certainly both economic and geopolitical because globalization ties the two together.
FWIW, the second world referred to communist countries, not BRICS or intermediate developing countries. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I googled second world countries just now, and the first hit, Investopedia, begs to differ about Second World:
The outdated term "second world" included countries that were once controlled by the Soviet Union. Second world countries were centrally planned economies and one-party states. Notably, the use of the term "second world" to refer to Soviet countries largely fell out of use in the early 1990s, shortly after the end of the Cold War.
But the term second world has also been used to cover countries that are more stable and more developed than offensive term "third-world" countries but less-stable and less-developed than first world countries. Examples of second-world countries by this definition include almost all of Latin and South America, Turkey, Thailand, South Africa, and many others.
By the first definition, some examples of second world countries include: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia, and China, among others.
With regard to the second definition, according to geo-strategist and London School of Economics doctorate Parag Khanna, approximately 100 countries exist that are neither first world (OECD) nor third world (least-developed, or LDC) countries. Khanna emphasizes that within the same country there can be a coexistence of first and second; second and third; or first and third world characteristics.
A country's major metropolitan areas may exhibit first world characteristics, for example, while its rural areas exhibit third-world characteristics. China displays extraordinary wealth in Beijing and Shanghai, yet many of its non-urban regions are still deemed developing.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
  • The term "second world" was initially used to refer to the Soviet Union and countries of the communist bloc.
  • It has subsequently been revised to refer to nations that fall between first and third world countries in terms of their development status and economic indicators.
  • The list includes countries from Latin and South America, Turkey, Thailand, and South Africa.
I don't know how to properly enter a source, but this all comes from this link:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/second-world.asp
(I would have put this in the Second World article Talk, but you [EvergreenFir] deleted my entry there and told me to keep the discussion of all three pages here.) Greg Lovern (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any green in the map. I only see grey. Where is the third world?

[edit]

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)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

First World

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Fails 2b) and 4, and possibly 2c) and 3, of the GA criteria. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After checking this article's sources, I removed many of them for being unreliable, and I believe the article fails criterion two. The coverage is also poorly weighted, with very little information on the history but significant coverage of globalization that leans into coatracking, suggesting issues with criteria three and four. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_World&oldid=1252203210"