File talk:First second third worlds map.svg

I think South Africa should be both green and blue on this map, especially in those days...Barbaar (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Baltic States, South Africa, and Iran

The Baltic States were controlled by the soviet union and south africa SHOULD be in blue because it was rich as hell then , now it's ruined and destroyed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.180.50 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Putting Iran in the role of a Third World country is hillarious. Even suggesting that for instance Turkey is a First-Wirld country or even Mongolia a second world country, saying that Iran is a third world nation is truly biased and wrong. Iran deserves to be called a semi-developped economy and has very clear traits of a second world country and potential for a first world one. STATEMENT: THIS MAP IS BIASED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.140.186 (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please read the article. The terms Third, First, and Second World were used to describe a country's political position during the cold war, and have nothing to do with development. They later came to be applied to development as many of the "Third World" nations were extremely underdeveloped, whereas most of NATO member nations were well developed. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• so where's the image now? Barbaar (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think its still there, but for some reason you have to go to the Third World article first. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Laos and Cambodia

• Laos and Cambodia should be considered part of the Second World on this map, for they had Communist governments and economies for much of the Cold War and until the end of the Cold War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.112.61 (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Either Laos and Cambodia should be red, or China, Yugoslavia, and Albania should be green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.77.216 (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, this states the time period between the takeover of Saigon by the DR Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the takeover of Laos by the Pathet Lao. The Cambodian government was socialist but not aligned to the Soviets, until Vietnam took over and Laos.... was still a monarchy (as the image depicts the world BEFORE the takeover.) Scratchinghead (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

• I am from ex Yugoslavia, and Yes, Yugoslavia was Third World country but I can see that some Kintetsubuffalo guy is constantly changing yougolsavia to be 2nd World country which wasnt true!

I am from Croatia, ex Yugoslavia so I can tell you from first hand, Yugoslavia wasnt aligned to SSSR or USA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.213.168 (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yugoslavia should be considered Third World for the purposes of this map, as Tito broke with Stalin early on (before the Sino-Soviet split), and cozied up to NATO while remaining communist in government and economy. Yugoslavia, along with India and Egypt, made up the core of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Yugoslavia was never part of Second world, it had very cool relations with Soviet Union,particulary in early 1950's when it was member of NATO-allied Balkan union together with Greece and Turkey.

I agree can somone change realy...Yugoslavia was part of Third world.--VuXman ^talk 21:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Yugoslavia is one of three founders of non-aligned movement (with India and Egypt), please somebody change this. Thanx.

--79.175.81.105 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If sending assassin on each other and breaking diplomatic relations is considered "good relationship" the they are right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.85.134.221 (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Now really someone should change the map - Yugoslavia is by no means part of Second World. --Rastko Pocesta (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Since a recent edit of mine doing exactly that was reverted with the explanation that this has already been "beaten to death", I ask the reverter to direct me to the page where this was discussed and a consensus reached to not re-color Yugoslavia. Having checked the talk pages of the articles for First World, Second World, and Third World in addition to this talk page and the talk page for Template:Three worlds, it seems that every comment which mentions Yugoslavia at all was in favor of re-coloring (or of scrapping the image entirely, but that is a different matter). Why was this change reverted, and with what policy justification? If verifiability is the issue, I can further provide sources supporting the pre-reversion version of the image, with Yugoslavia in the Third World:

• Prashad, Vijay. (2007). The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World. The New Press. ISBN-13: 978-1-56584-785-9.

• Brands, H. W. (1989). The specter of neutralism: the United States and the emergence of the Third World, 1947-1960. Columbia University Press. ISBN: 023107168X, 9780231071680.

• Dragan, Bogetić. (2006). Pogoršanje jugoslovensko-američkih odnosa posle prvog samita nesvrstanih zemalja u Beogradu.

• Živković, Marko. (2001). Nešto između-simbolička geografija Srbije. From "Filozofija i društvo".

The last of these is quite concise and explicit: "Jugosloveni sebe nisu smeštali ni u Prvi svet (Zapad) ni u Drugi svet (Istok) već u Treći svet, ali definisan ne kao zaostali Jug, već kao progresivni i ponosni pokret Nesvrstanih." ("The Yugoslavs themselves did not belong either to the First World (the West) nor to the Second World (the East) but to the Third World...")

Any explanation would be appreciated. I have no interest in becoming involved in an edit-war, but this image should preferably both conform to Wikipedia's policies and be historically accurate (note that all captions for this image describe it as representing 1975). Vorziblix (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to add an other book in the whole thing, about Yugoslavia's neutrality Andrej Grubacic, don't mourn, Balkanize! --Eirwnas (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Economy of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had planned socialist economy, which makes it a part of Second World. Netrat (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked in the history of the picture. Yugoslavia being labeled as a "third world country" was really facepalm-worthy. This time though, I just smiled and said to myself: "Well, that's Wiki...". Despite the Yugoslavia-USSR split, Yugoslavia obviously belongs to the second world as (among other reasons) it was a communistic, totalitarian country with planned economy, for god's sake! 77.70.30.216 (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia wasn't a part of second world - never. Yugoslavia had a own socialist way, just like India or Egypt and was since 1949 never under control of Russia - it's a fact. Even the first conference of Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries was in Yugoslavia (see "Non-Aligned Movement Summit")
--Bova (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Anachronistic

• Cambodia and Laos must be Second World. Or South Vietnam must be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.173.11 (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitley agree that Laos should be added to the 2nd world, but Cambodia is a confusing strory and I think they jumped back and forth of being communist? However I'm sure that Laos was (if not, still is) just like Vietnam.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Finland

Wasn't Finland part of the second world, due to it being under Soviet influence (even while being democratic and semi-rich at the time)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.84.18 (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The alliance only lasted one year. So they should be first world.--BubbleDude22 (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Mexico

Mexico was a ally of the United States. They should be in blue.--BubbleDude22 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point, and it's unfair that Turkey and not Mexico is in blue.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The map you are looking for is called File:Cold War alliances mid-1975.svg. This map (File:First second third worlds map.svg) is not about military alliance, it is about development of economy. Netrat (talk)

Actually, turkey was a very strong us ally throughout the whole cold war whereas Mexico maintained neutrality 82.43.154.250 (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Turkey

Isn't Turkey 3rd world?

I agree, but some people think that they can't come under 3rd world either due to their membership with Nato.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

I seem to recall that Ireland is, like Switzerland, a neutral country. 78.16.64.23 (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no neutral on this map.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Another issue. Really, though, if Ireland is anything according to this world-view, it's Third World. Remember, this isn't the same as the economic concept of the Third World. Salomoh 19:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Baltic countries were not independent before the unification of Germany and Yemen

This should be sorted out. Ijanderson (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I seriously agree, I don't know why they forgot to add them.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ON a related topic (to the title at least) before unification half of Yemen was every bit as much "second world" as Cuba and Vietnam, especially since we are going by - to use another editor's comments further up - "a country's political position during the cold war, [not its level of] development.". Grutness...wha? 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland

Switzerland was not part of NATO or any other military alliance. They should not be shown as an ally of the US. Cameron Nedland (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

By that same argument, France shouldn't be there either, as they withdrew from NATO, and de Gaulle wanted France to be a counter-balance to Anglo-American power in the West. Conventional scholars consider all developed, non-Soviet-aligned European states as being First World though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.77.216 (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam

If this map is supposed to reflect the early Cold War (late 40s), why is all of Vietnam red, and not just the northern part of it? If it's supposed to reflect the later Cold War, why are Yugoslavia, Albania, and China red and not green? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.77.216 (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

There were A LOT of very good suggestions made so far.

• South Africa and Mexico DEFINITELY should be blue.
• I believe that China, Yugoslavia, and Albania should be green because the first two states were non-aligned, and the latter was squarely anti-Soviet (and pro-Chinese for a couple of decades)
• Laos should be red.
• If China remains red, then Cambodia should be red as well, as she was either aligned with China or the USSR during the final two decades of the cold war. If we decide to use the Khmer Rouge's regime as a benchmark, and China turns green, then Cambodia should remain green as well.

Why haven't ANY of these changes been made? Or even some of them? Especially #1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.77.216 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WHY IS THERE NO GREEN?? everything is in gray instead. The captions all say third world countries are in green 24.123.91.70 (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing... Why on earth did someone edit it to be grey instead of green? All the other pages use a blue, red and green key. --79.64.123.61 (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Web Standards

Can we not upload the image in .svg and use one of the web standards (jpg, gif or png). Pretty basic stuff guys... --79.64.123.61 (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is common misconception in the west that Yugoslavia, as a communist country, was under the "Iron curtain", and aligned with USSR, but it is not the case. Yugoslavia, as one of the founding countries of "Non-Aligned Movement", should definitely be green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.239.5.121 (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Without a side taken, the map is currently in error, and different chronological versions should exist

The current map version, dated 13:43, 27 July 2010, is just technically incorrect; the 'third' color is shown as green in the legend, and grey or nothing on the map. It is currently uninformative/confusing and should not exist. That said, it is an important image to develop; maybe 'Third world' and 'others' could be used. The 'worlds' representation on a map have changed so much over time however, that is might be impossible to get it right consensually, without a date attached. 1955 is a good year; it post-dates Truman, Bandung, and the Warsaw. 1956 is good too because it post-dates Suez, Hungary, and Eisenhower. These are definitely world-splitting events, but if one looks here, and actually read Ike's title and speech[1], one might reasonably argue that it was equally anti-colonial as much as anti-communist, but very much anti-expansionist in either extreme.

Some time pre- and post-1989-1991 are good and very different periods to choose also, although after the general loss of that second world to get world one's teeth into, there seems to have developed a much more varied menu upon which some chew. With the present-day divisions, a map is much harder to color and gain consensus; the original basis of division has largely vanished and new choices appear to many. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please make a time note and fix SVG

I can guess that a map should reflect a historical reality between approx. 1950 and 1960. But it would be much better to narrow this period and make a clear note in a map description. This would allow to define the borders much more accurately from historical perspective and also would decrease the degree of contradictions between readers and/or authors, because some of them mistakenly assume that the map is contemporary.
Also I would like to ask to fix this map for the Firefox 4 web browser, because the current version "13:43, 27 July 2010" doesn't have green colour: grey is shown instead. However, many previous versions of the map have green as it has to be. --91.78.251.163 (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

new version is incomplete

the green is gone! please fix soon, as the picture is incoherent without it Ansh666 (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC) never mind, seems to have been firefox's fault for not completely loading the picture Ansh666 (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy, verifiability

This file first needs to accurately explain what it represents. If it depicts political alliances, it's inaccurate. There are neutral countries which were not members of the Non-aligned movement, such as Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Albania etc. They should be coloured gray. A reliable reference should be used. For the time being, I'll just place Yugoslavia into Non-aligned countries. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I won't. It should be completely redone or deleted as it's misleadingly oversimplified. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

South Africa = Blue

If Turkey is blue, then definitley so should South Africa. They were always against communism, and the communist party was banned under apartheid. They were actually fairly wealthy, although the overall GDP per capita and quality of life have declined, this is a historic map and so it should be among the first world countries. What you must also remember is that 20% of the population was white, which were definitley 1st world, 10% were coloured or indian, who were good craftsmen and had a good quality of life, while the 60% had lives parralleling that of Greece. In 1990, SAs HDI was 0.78, just below New Zealands at the time, it has decrease now, but once again this is a historic map, please can someone change this map? Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A source for these statistics? the Human Development Report interactive map http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map/ says that HDI in 1990 was 0.615 for South Africa, 0.828 for New Zealand and 0.766 for Greece.--Alcea setosa (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This map is not about politics, it's about economy. Turkey should not be blue in this map, and neither should be South Africa. Both were developing economies during Cold War era. Netrat (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

French Guiana

Why is French Guiana coloured blue? I know it is "part of" France, but it is coming across as an incorrect message that its people are wealthy and have a good quality of life, which is certainly not true, especially when compared to the rest of South America. Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Separate statistic is tracked for dependent territories by WTO, IMF and other organizations. Netrat (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Falklands

Should be blue. 94.193.35.68 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? Netrat (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The Falklands Islands and the nearby South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are British overseas territories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.189.196.35 (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

As part of the US, it's pretty much a given that Puerto Rico should be blue. Same thing with both sets of the Virgin Islands (ie US and UK possessions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.85.245.162 (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I followed a link to this map from EnDot Third World. That article captions the map: "as they were separated during the Cold War era [sic], each with its respective allies as of the period between 30 April 1975 . . . and 23 August 1975 . . . ." Neither Puerto Rico nor the Panama Canal Zone is in blue, nor are Hong Kong, Portugese Timor, Papua New Guinea, Western Sahara, Angola, &c. All that notwithstanding, how is the peak of US power at Saigon (1975) considered NPOV? Maybe NPOV is the Soviet peak at Kabul--with a splash of red in central America and southern Africa. - 75.111.41.132 (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Political allegiance has little to do with economical statistics. Most sources regard dependent territories like Puerto Rico as separate entities, see List of countries by Human Development Index for an example. Also, this map is for Cold War era. What HDI and GDP per capita did Puerto Rico have during that era? Netrat (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Namibia

While I can aknowlegde that (white) south africa could be considered first world, It dosen't make sence to include numibia in the first world while putting other colonies of first world nations in the third world, it should be treated the same way,--J intela (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Both Namibia and South Africa are developing economies, and they sure were developing economies during Cold War era. Let's change them back to green. Netrat (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

South Korea

Developing country article suggests that according to International Monetary Fund, South Korea only graduated to developed economy in 1997, so it was a developing economy in Cold War era, and thus should be green on this map. Netrat (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)