File talk:First second third worlds map.svg

 

Neutral nations

I got a question since this map depicts the cold war area, why are neutral nations, such as Swiss or Austria for example, part of the first world? They are and never were part of NATO or wWarsaw Pact, so they should be depicted as third world in my opinion or am I missing something?

Edit warring

Replacing versions back and forth is not acceptable. Upload your own pet version on a separate file name, and let the users decide on what version to use in articles. Keep this file in the version that was kept by the DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Revisions for this file have been cleanup

Due to edit warring, eight image revisions have been hidden to hide disruption. Please discuss image or upload image version in question separately. ZooFari 00:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Third World" in English usage, is the term now supplanted by "developing nations". It is not and has never been a synonym for "Third Position". Yugoslavia was Third Position, not Third World.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What you say isn't exactly true-Third World was a synonym for what you call "Third Position", and has in its original usage been supplanted by the use of the organization name, "Non-Aligned [Movement]". The word has now been redirected to what is "developing nations"-Third World is used alongside it nowadays. Scratchinghead (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

Ah, I see the problem. My apologies to User:Kintetsubuffalo; I was only looking at the English and Russian Wikipedia talk pages rather than the Commons pages. In light of this error, some of what I wrote there might not be as relevant in this context; nevertheless, most of it still holds, and for reference and discussion, what I posted there was this (in response to several comments asking someone to correct Yugoslavia):

"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)."

I will not be reverting the image again until a decision is reached if discussion continues here (or elsewhere). Even taking into account Commons pages, I still fail to see any place where a consensus was reached in the past (other than the consensus not to delete the image), however, and so the above questions and issues still stand. Furthermore, I would add that according to the captions that appear alongside this image on the Wikipedias, the red color reflects "the Soviet Union, China, and their allies", a group which, in 1975, did not even remotely include Yugoslavia. If, on the other hand, the captions are wrong and the red color is meant to show socialist/communist countries in general, I ask why South Yemen is not colored red. Either way, the image is in need of amendment. Vorziblix (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And you just uploaded a new version anyway. Stop this nonsense! Upload your own map on a different file name. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed just upload a new version: note that my original statement was explicitly qualified by "if discussion continues here", but it had already been a month since anyone had discussed anything. You refer to my emendation as "nonsense", yet you fail to provide any justification for your viewpoint, and you furthermore fail to provide any counter-arguments to my justifications, or even any constructive discussion whatsoever. Most emendations to this map are clearly permitted: see, for example, the recent re-coloring of the Falkland Islands. Why, then, should this specific one be forbidden, and what policy demands that a new file must be created for it to be undertaken? If there is such a policy, or if a previous consensus was reached regarding Yugoslavia, point me to that policy or consensus and I will gladly concede that you are in the right. Otherwise, the matter remains unresolved until you, User:Kintetsubuffalo, or anyone else defending a red-coloured Yugoslavia provide some constructive discussion and justification. Considering it's been months since I first made the change and no one has bothered with so much as defending that point of view, I ask any of you who support reversion to explain your reversions and your viewpoints. If I, and the many others who think Yugoslavia should be green-coloured, are wrong (and we very well might be), I ask only that you explain why rather than undertaking unjustified reversions. Vorziblix (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the problem with this map is that it is ambiguous. This is supposed to tell whether a country belonged to the first, second or third world during the cold war, but that was a very long period, and some countries (e.g. South Africa, South Korea, Spain and the Republic of China) changed a lot during during this era and moved from one set in the beginning of the era to a different set at the end of the era. It is not clear whether this map is supposed to represent the situation at the beginning of the cold war, the situation at the end of the cold war or anything else. Also, the terms "first world", "second world" and "third world" aren't clearly defined, leaving some ambiguity there too. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to discuss this matter. I would agree with you in that one significant potential problem is the ambiguity of the map. What the file itself is representing is ill-defined in almost every respect when viewed without context. However, this ambiguity becomes less of a problem when one sees that the captions for this image throughout the Wikipedias do establish a context. For example, in the English Wikipedia, the caption reads:

"The three worlds as they were separated during the Cold War era, each with its respective allies as of the period between 30 April 1975 (the fall of Saigon) and 23 August 1975 (the communist takeover in Laos). Colors do not represent current economic development.

(blue) First World: the United States and its allies.

(red) Second World: the Soviet Union, China, and their allies.

(green) Third World: neutral and non-aligned countries."

Given this specific context, which matches that established by the captions in at least the few other Wikipedias that I've checked, the problem of ambiguity vanishes. Instead, the image becomes simply incorrect, because in 1975 Yugoslavia was not an ally of either the Soviet Union or China, and was a member of the non-aligned bloc. The question then becomes simply one of whether to change the image or to change all the captions, and the former is a much more convenient route. It also allows one to resolve the issue that the image, as it stands, does not actually match any historical period for any consistent definition of the first, second, and third worlds. The image is simply arbitrary, with no standards of verification. Considering all of this, I think the best route would be to explicitly attach the caption's description to the file, then correct the file to match that description. This would eliminate ambiguity, allow the image's assertions to be definitively verifiable, and eliminate inconsistencies. What does the community think of this? Would this course of action be acceptable? If so, I will begin to implement it upon acceptance. Vorziblix (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said above: Upload your own pet version on a separate file name, and let the users decide on what version to use in articles. Keep this file in the version that was kept by the DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you would read what I said above, you will note that I explicitly mentioned that this map has already been changed from the DR version by coloring South Africa and the Falklands blue, so evidently keeping it as the DR version is not the issue here. I also ask again, what policy justifies keeping it as that version rather than correcting it? If you point me to the policy, I will concede that you are in the right, and the matter will be resolved. Vorziblix (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Vorz is right. Most of pages that include this image have a description "USSR, China and their allies" for red and "Non-alligned countries" for green, and Yugoslavia most deffineatly fits in the "green" category. I really don't understand what's the issue here..--Nekoceko (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)