text:
Talk:Global North and Global South

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Textavour. Peer reviewers: Shetty.in.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Image
Why not make the colourblind map the thumbnail? I don't like to click things that take time to load. Mensilater (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

 * The color-blind map is based on older data. What would be best, I suppose, would be if someone made the current map color-blind compliant rather than linking to an older map. -  Ne ll  is  15:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion
Hello I am Yamen and I am going to talk to you about a global North-South divide is an outdated concept that no longer holds accuracy in today's world, it smacks more of 19th and 20th century Eurocentric racism.

Regarding the map, can anyone explain why such countries as Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Brunei, Seychelles, The Bahamas, Barbados are not included in the blue developed area?

All these countries have a high GDP per capita and a high Human Development Index. Many Eastern European 'blue' countries on that map are poorer, less developed and rank below these countries in most ratings.

The article should be deleted as it doesn't hold together. 90.193.39.195 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This article should be deleted because the proper term in postcolonial studies is "global south," and the Eurocentrism of this article is particularly problematic in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatGirlMoses (talk • contribs) 02:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Moved Israel
Moved Israel to Europe, as it is geographically and culturally closer to Europe than Asia.

 * The article on Europe does not include Israel within it, thus for internal consistency I am placing Israel back in Asia. AlexD 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel absolutely belongs in the south as it is a Semitic desert country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.189.91.64 (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed China
Per capita GDP of china is well below that of Northern countries, on par with the majority of south American countries, which are not part of 'The North'. Also China is not a developed country, though it has advanced industry sectors. Infrastructure development, environmental and health & safety regulations, and political organization in China do not yet meet the level of those found in advanced Western nations such as Britain and Sweden, which are considered members of 'The North'.

There is obviously problems with what is North and what is South and some people here seems to be suggesting that some countries "deserve" to be North based on thier own personal evaluations. The map, as many here say, simplifies too much. Some very high GDP per capita countries are labelled as "South" such as Singapore and Hong Kong. The statement that "virtually all the wealth is held in the North" is wrong if we define North and South by that map because the combined gross GDP of China, India, and Brazil is significantly high. The article needs to address the ambiguities.

if any one has any information other than this can they send it to me with the subjet:north-south to charlottelouisecook@hotmail.com thank you very much

We know that Manchester is in the North and London is in the South, but what about in between?

 * The Midlands are considered to be south by the north and north by the south. Morwen - Talk 08:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest the counties of Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Northhamptonshire, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk are in the South, and everything above this is the North. Cardiff is resented by the west of the Welsh in the same way London is by Northerners, so I suggest Cardiff, the Vale of Glamorgan, Newport and Monmouthshire are also South.

 * As a former native of Norfolk (and more specifically, North Norfolk), I've often faced this debate. My particular town (Hunstanton) is dead level with Stoke On Trent, which is almost universally acknowledged as the Midlands; alternatively, I've seen Norfolk described as "geographically south but economcally north". In short, nobody seems to know and even fewer people seem to care. ;-) Kinitawowi 10:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

North-South Gap
Can anyone tell me the relationship between Global North and Global South?

Silly geo-political division
Why are Russia and South Africa members of the "north"? Brazil, for example, has a higher GDP and IDH than both of these nations, but it is considered "South".

Chile and Argentine, for exemple, have a higher (a LOT higher)IDH than South Africa.

 * It is a silly division. It was something invented by the Americans and English who think that the world ends at the equator. Wallie 18:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And why isn't South Korea included in "the North" if countries like Russia are? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.54.51.244 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 19 May 2006.

I have to agree. The United Arab Emirates, South Korea, Taiwan (ROC), Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay all belong on that map, and that's only a few of the possibilities for inclusion. Right now, it looks more like a simple "White people and Japan" map. Picaroon9288 21:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm, so does anyone want to update the map? Shouldn't be too hard - just download the high-quality version & use some program (even MSPaint will probably work) to colour some countries differently.  Then upload it to wikipedia and replace this one.  This would be easier if there was a clear criteria for the requirements to be in the "north".  I too am not quite sure that South Africa deserves to be there... it's doing much better than its surrounding countries, but it's got plenty of its own problems... whereas the United Arab Emirates and maybe Kazakhstan might deserve to be there, in addition to all of those wealthy nations in South-East Asia (like Singapore and South Korea).  But first, we need to establish some kind of clear criteria on a country's inclusion.  Scientific progress & a highly educated populace should count for something too, I think (which is why Russia deserves its place).  Esn 22:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 * None of us are likely qualified to update this... Granted i agree with you, when i looked at it my first thought was why isnt South korea on there, then it went further, Hong Kong, Israel,UAE and Taiwan... If you want the editted map however we do need a conclusive list then of what to add although im afraid that would violate the personally done research rule of Wikipedia. IF someone can find a better list of nations though i'd be happy to make the map myself. Ass for a point made above, the addition of Kazakhstand would be foolish without including Thailand, and that is a bit further than i think most would be willing to go...HawkShark

To me this division doesn't make any sense at all; but I suggest, if someone wants to change the map, to paint some countries in purple...The best would be to delete this article, itself it suggests that calling it "north-south divide" is senseless; if this division was bond with the development index it would be altogether different. What is this division founded in then?--Cloviz 03:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Not Scientific!!!
Just because a country is developed does NOT mean that it's part of the North. Most of the Northern countries are white, so perhaps this is a more scientifically valid division of humans. China would probably NEVER be part of the North - and what the hell is Russian doing there?! This article is totally subjective and coloured in some kind of pseudo-formal fascistic rhetoric. Can someone vote for deletion please?

?--Nukamason 16:35, 08 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The north-south divide is not a division of human beings but a divison of countries primarily based on GNP, the main division occurred as a result of the Brandt Commission that produced the Brandt Line. The model as it stands is one that is out-dated and does not represent the present spatial division of GNP levels that has been produced firstly by internationalisation and then by globalisation. The model is part of how global inequalities and development has been measured with the "first" being the three worlds model, followed by the brandt line and then the move from economic indicators to social and environmental and now to the prsent globalisation view and is not a "pseudo-formal fascistic rhetoric", prehaps you ought to take a look at this site understand the division http://www.s-cool.co.uk/topic_quicklearn.asp?loc=ql&topic_id=13&quicklearn_id=1&subject_id=20&ebt=151&ebn=&ebs=&ebl=&elc=4. Hope that helps AlexD 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

 * Changed my mind about moving other European countries up, but I left Taiwan as it was missing... Basser g 16:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkey belongs to the north
Turkey should be in the north.

At least, 70% of Turkey is highly more developed than most of the european lands (east europe) included in the north.

I think that this map has been made by unscientific and racist knowledgeless criteria.

bye.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.83.185 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC) - There is a q uestion whether Turkey belongs part of Europe... or Developed countries--Kingj123 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Turkey have less than half of the western europe avarage GPD per capita. Maybe in some years we can call it developed country, but by now we can't if we base in socio-economics factors like GDP per capita or HDI. --190.153.75.211 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

 * There's no way South Africa is part of the north (developed world). HDI and economics do not allow! Simoes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.115.4.59 (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I don´t agree with the inclusion of South Africa, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile to the list of 1st world countries. They are not seen by the world this way, and i´ve never heard any report including those four countries. Where did you get that from? 201.47.176.72 (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The first map diagram is titled: "The updated view of the north-south divide. Blue includes G8 states and developed/ first world states." The affirmation is completely incorrect. Most of eastern europe are not considered first world, as the southern cone of South America and South Africa. Please someone correct it. 201.47.176.72 (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed Uruguay, Argentina, South Africa, Chile, Russia and Eastern Europe of the map where it reads 1st world countries
I removed the indication of Uruguay, Argentina, South Africa, Chile, Russia and eastern europe being 1st world. Their development level is well below that of Northern countries. Some of those countries, mainly the south americans (Uruguay, Argentina y Chile) and South Africa are more commonly associated with the term 'The South'. Their GDP per capita are also not the minimum required to be 1st world (USD $20.000,00), thus, the information presented can´t be considered correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joevicentini (talk • contribs) 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not saying they are first world, it is saying they are part of the global north. It's not the same thing, as explained in the article itself. Zazaban (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is saying they are first world countries, under the picture, it reads "The updated view of the north-south divide. Blue includes G8 states and developed/ first world states." Those countries are not 1st world or considered developed by the World Bank, thus, the picture need corrections. The inclusion of south america countries and south africa in 'the north' is also completely speculative and based on personal evaluations. By standard references they are considered 'the south' rather than 'the north'. I really don't see why people are reverting the picture so many times when its obvious the old picture contains wrong information. Please, stop reverting it. 201.47.176.72 (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you're not familiar with Wikipedia. "people are reverting the picture so many times when its obvious the old picture contains wrong information" because they disagree with your changes and because it's not obvious, especially as their information is sourced and yours is not. Source your changes and then you have something to talk about with all of us horrible users who actually sign in and who actually use sourced material. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't explain why you're removing Russia, and parts of the EU, both of which are in the G8. Zazaban (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Im just trying to help. The article where the first world countries are listed does not list the countries I excluded as 1st world. Also, the World Bank classify as first world any country that has more than USD 20.000,00 GPD per capita annualy. The picture is titled "G8 + first world countries", so it should contain just 1st world countries. That´s not the case of Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, and the countries of eastern europe i´ve put in red. Also, there are countries like Brazil who are more developed than South Africa and is listed as 3rd World, while South Africa is listed as 1st world. The article, in my opinion, presents biased information and should be revised. That´s why i tried to help it. Joevicentini (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Zazaban, I´ve removed the eastern countries because they are not 1st world countries based on the classification given by the World Bank or IFM, or any other that i know. Same case of the south american countries and south africa. As I said 2 times before: the picture is labeled "G8 + 1st world countries", so it should contain just G8 and 1st world countries. I agree Russia should be pictured in blue because it´s a G8 state, so, i changed the picture to include Russia. Joevicentini (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You still have to source your changes, otherwise it is original research, just like you've (bad faith?) tagged this article today. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kintetsubufallo, I´ve tagged the article because the issue we´re discussing is under dispute and neither sides sourced their changes. I´m not acting in bad faith and you should have realized this by now. Just keep arguments about the article itself and don´t try to guess other people's intentions, you´re not good at it. By the way, i´ve put a formal source by now to end this debate. I suggest you do the same if you want to change it again, or i'll keep correcting this article. Joevicentini (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I repeat, the north is not synonymous with 1st world. Also, the EU as a whole is part of the G8 (see the g8 article) so eastern european countries in the EU should be be blue. Zazaban (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Zazaban, if eastern european countries are part of the G8, then i guess you´re right and i wouldn´t oppose putting them in blue. But please provide the source for this in the article. Joevicentini (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the inclusion of eastern europe, because EU is represented at the G8, but i don´t agree with the inclusion of parts of south america and south africa. The statement classifying both as developed countries is unsourced and seems to be based purely on personal point of views, not real facts. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joevicentini (talk • contribs) 09:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Eastern European states were only colored blue on the understanding that they were part of the EU and therefore the G8, then several of them should be changed back to red, as the entirety of Europe is not part of the EU. Specifically, Albania, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, and Ukraine should all be red. -  Ne ll  is  20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Lothrop Stoddard is a thoroughly debunked "scientific racist" from around the turn of the 20th century. What would be the point in falsely legitimizing his rhetoric by crediting it as a possible explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.129.197 (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

This arbitrary divide was conceived of in part to replace the previous arbitrary divide which defined countries as "first, second, and third-world," a system that was significantly more blatant in its assertions of some countries being "better" than others. The ambiguous terms "North" and "South" are used because they're far more value-neutral, and imply nothing other than geographical tendency in and of themselves. These terms are also technical and remain in fairly widespread use in the fields of political science and sociology, and as such cannot be redefined here based on our personal feelings about them. If you want to talk about geographic location, you divide things by hemisphere. "Global North" and "Global South," on the other hand, have specific meanings that are only indirectly tied to geography. You will never find scholarly sources using those specific words to talk about anything other than GNP or other economic and development sources. While confusing to the layman, the meaning is clear to those in the field. I know this is a response to an old post, but given the nature of this subject matter, reiteration of this is necessary. 50.128.192.193 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why?
are Chile, Argentina and Uruguay not blue? Retroqqq (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Turkey, Taiwan and default Greece are more developed than Southern Cone???? who makes this maps?Retroqqq (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Typical Northern Hemisphere cultural bias
The fact that whoever oversees this article defends that ridiculously misleading blue/red map should be ashamed of him or herself. So I guess places like Albania, Kosovo, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Moldova, most of Turkey, New Orleans, Detroit, etc... are more developed than Southern South America. Given the current economic state of things, it's arguable wheather the EU or US are more developed! Well, that maybe slightly exagerated, but nontheless this article serves no point. It is not informative nor accurate. It should be closed down. The dugout (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Relax. The North-South Divide is a popular concept. Whether the concept accurately describes the world is a matter for academic debate, but has no bearing on whether the article about the concept should exist. -  Ne ll  is  19:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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

This view (which I've never seen before) appears to be racially loaded fringe view, "conveniently" excluding Japan to redefine "Global North" as "white people". Even historically, remember that in the early 20th century Japan had colonies (Korea and Taiwan) much like a European power in those days, and Japan was very much on the same level as European countries in terms of development and power. Today, of course, it makes even less sense to equate "North" to "European/white ethnicity" with the rise of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc. Even whether China is in the North or the South has become debatable today. My impression is that "North" or "South" has as much to do with international influence as with development, which is why Russia (and perhaps China) belongs in the North. And yes, such terms change over time; we don't use Second World anymore since the fall of Communism (and this is why First World and Third World have also fallen out of favor). Nor are "North" and "South" literally geographical, look at Australia and New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.234.219.54 (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Map of North and South countries
I know this may seem trivial but according to this article, countries that are a part of the 'North' are developed countries. If that's the case, then why are developing countries, like Russia and Turkey, shown on the map to be 'North' countries? Although those countries have huge economies, the article clearly states that;

"As nations become economically developed, they may become part of the "North", regardless of geographical location, while any other nations which do not qualify for "developed" status are in effect deemed to be part of the "South."

202.89.153.10 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty sure Russia is included as a member of the G8 (note its inclusion at the bottom of North-South_divide). Turkey is referenced in North-South_divide, but I agree that its inclusion is certainly questionable. -  Ne ll  is  13:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Those referrences are unsatisfactory and does not fully explain why the aforementioned countries are considered 'North'. This article contradicts itself if it states that "As nations become economically developed, they may become part of the "North", regardless of geographical location, while any other nations which do not qualify for "developed" status are in effect deemed to be part of the "South." and then includes developing countries as being North. By the strictest definiton, only developed countries may be considered North. Most of those countries in the former Soviet Bloc are developing or under-developed economies and although Russia is a member of G8, it is still a developing country if you take the country's Human Development Index into consideration. From what I read, the North and South divide is a divide between countries which are developed and countries which are developing regardless of their geographical position (take Australia and New Zealand for example). I do not want to sound elitist but this is what the article states and it is misleading if developing nations are included.

202.89.154.142 (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I propose the following:

- USA+CAN+JAP+KOR+EU+EU candidates+EFTA+(partialy) developed CIS This covers most of the north, and all countries have 10.000 dollars per capita per year at least. Including Turkey and other partially developed Turkic countries (Kazakhstan & Azerbaijan) also helps to show European influence on the cultures, politics and geopolitical aliances of these states compaired to other islamic countries.NeoRetro (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Climate
As pointed out in Geographic latitude, climate is a much more obvious factor that correlates with the distribution, considering that the "Global North" largely includes the temperate zone of the southern hemisphere, as well (especially considering that South Africa and Northern Africa are better off economically than the tropical zone of Africa, too). --Florian Blaschke (talk)

Intro
"The expression "north–south divide" is still in common use, but the terms "North" and "South" are already somewhat outdated. As nations become economically developed, they may become part of the "North", regardless of geographical location, while any other nations which do not qualify for "developed" status are in effect deemed to be part of the "South."[2]"

The assertion that the terms are outdated is not directly suggested by the source given for this. It's true that the Global North/South divide does not currently (nor has it ever, really) fulfill its purpose with total geographical accuracy, but to use this as justification for calling it "outdated" is to assume that geographical accuracy was a serious goal of the system in the first place, and not merely an anecdotal recognition of the tendency, rather than total certainty, of the north/south divide being geographically accurate. One of the main reasons these terms achieved widespread use was simply because "North" and "South" are relatively value-neutral terms, as opposed to the old "first, second, third-world" system. The geographical accuracy of the divide is almost irrelevant, in that case, as the goal is to just get away from the suggestion that some countries are "better" than others.

While many relevant fields have moved away from the system in recent times, any claim that it's outdated should be supported by a source that not only says that, but explains why in terms that don't require the reader to make an assumption about the purpose of choosing these labels, especially when the labels themselves are suggestive of the idea that geography really is what matters here. 50.128.192.193 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

List: The North
For some reason we have a list of countries that "International Organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as well as the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), generally tend to agree that the group of majorly developed countries includes the following countries/regions," which began to accumulate countries which not all of these sources would agree are advanced economies. I removed all those countries which I know to have been part of the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War, excepting Singapore, but that doesn't really make me happy.

To start with, the citation is "see map." I'm sure I could find the lists for each source, cross-check them, remove/add countries as needed and add the links, but before I do that, I need to ask: is the list really necessary? Even if I cross-checked and sourced it, what good would it do us that the map doesn't already? I'm in favor or removing it entirely. —Quintucket (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree; the "The North" section of the article should be removed entirely. It gives undue weight to that particular map (which should remain in the article, I think), over and above the other maps in the article. The term "The North" is a general concept rather than a concrete list of countries, and this section of the article misrepresents that. Unless someone has a good reason why it should remain, I say axe it. -  Ne ll  is  22:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

"only 5% of the population has enough food" and other bullshit
''95% of the North has a functioning educational system. In the South, on the other hand, only 5% of the population has enough food and shelter.''

What is a functioning educational system? 95% of what have what? Only 5% of the population has enough food in most countries of the world?

Someone sort this propaganda out. Or I will delete it later. Yes, should be bold and do it yourself, but I really don't have time now to check and research and I don't want to anger people by just deleting stuff and nothing else. I haven't slept for a nychthemeron and don't know enough English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.136.27.245 (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Add references about the digital and technological divide. It may be useful to discuss how technology in the North is dependent on certain parts of the South for its production.

In the Defining Development section, there needs to be quotes around what N. Oluwafemi said or it needs to be rewritten in a way that doesn't make it seem like it's a direct quote.

Very small detail, but the capitalization of North and South are inconsistent. Not every place where “South” or “North” is written is capitalized.

Citation is needed under the “Brandt Line” section

MarlenaTrafas (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree; this is absurdly unplausible and un-sourced. I've removed it. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on North–South divide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430190841/http://blogs.odi.org.uk/blogs/main/archive/2010/07/22/brazil_south_south_cooperation.aspx to http://blogs.odi.org.uk/blogs/main/archive/2010/07/22/brazil_south_south_cooperation.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515171820/http://www.stwr.net/content/view/43/83/ to http://www.stwr.net/content/view/43/83

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Article seems well developed for the most part and I appreciate that. It informs me as the reader with just the right amount of information about the North-South divide and I really like that you included the graphs on the right to physically show how the north and south are divided physically and by GDP etc. I think, if possible, you should expand more on the History and Brandt Line since the sections are a bit underdeveloped; Theories explaining divide should be one of the main topics you expand on. Also, you did a great job with the ‘Defining Development’ so that topic does not need any more work done to it in my opinion. There are a few lines in your introduction, Brandt Line and Digital and technological divide that need to be cited so you do not become subject to plagiarism. A correction need to be done on the article concerning the countries that are labelled as North and South as it seem not all of them are accurately correct. Your sentences are punctuated well for the most part and sentences seem articulated well so to my opinion there aren’t any obvious grammatical issues, but your capitalization of North and South need to be more consistent. Lastly, to double check on the references for some reason all of them were not working when I tried using them. Overall though, I enjoyed your article. Good stuff. Indiedixon (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Consider merging with Global South
I see some overlap between this article and the one on Global South. Might consider a merger? Furthermore, there is some overlap with developing countries. We should make it clear that the North-South divide article is about a concept (which may well be outdated in its simplicity) but explain where it came from and what the theories are behind it. As to the current economic, social etc. situation in developing countries, this should primarily all be discussed at developing countries not elsewhere to avoid overlap and repetition. EMsmile (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Support - per nom. If Global North is merged into this, so should Global South. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added the relevant templates Abcmaxx (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Coming back to this. Just wondering what the title of the final article should be? It seems to me that the term "Global South" is the more common one, so perhaps the article "North-South divide in the World" ought to be merged into there (rather than vice versa).EMsmile (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconded - If any merge takes place then the resulting page should definitely be at Global South; not only per WP:COMMONNAME but also WP:CONCISE. However I disagree somewhat with your original suggestion to keep developing countries as its own article, to "avoid overlap and repetition" for certain. The "North–South divide" itself only exists for the sole purpose of distinguishing between "developed" and "developing"; we can't separate the socioeconomic reality from a concept about it! Where exactly would we draw the line?
 * The alternative to merging all three would be to find some other axis on which to spread the topic over two articles, but the only plausible one I can think of (time) has the exact same issue; at what precise point would "History of the Global South" end, and the main article begin? Therefore I am leaning towards a single article that starts something like:

 * In such a case, how much content should be kept from developing countries? Snizzbut (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Snizzbut, if you wanted to merge Global South and developing countries then I think the name of the final article should be "developing countries" as it still is the more common name. In parallel there is a discussion whether "developing countries" should be renamed to "low and middle income countries (LMIC)". See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Developing_country#Developing_country_as_a_historical_term . I find it quite difficult to decide. It will probably be easier in about 5 years from now because we might observe by then which term has replaced the other term. I don't think that "Global South" will turn out to be the winner. Maybe rather LMIC. For now, we could merge Global South into developing countries, although would the merged article end up being too big? I think a better interim step would be to merge "North–South divide in the World" into Global South and then see about the rest at a later stage. EMsmile (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support merging Global South into North–South divide in the World for the sake of consistency. I oppose merging North–South divide in the World into Global South because there needs to be coverage on both the Global North and Global South.  Mysterymanblue  01:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Please see below for my updated !vote.  Mysterymanblue  07:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: After thinking more about it, I think the way forward is to merge North–South divide in the World into Global South because Global South will be the more common search term. And it's no contradiction that it would also include content on "Global North" as one is the opposite of the other. We don't need two separate articles for opposite things. They can be dealt with under one term, and for that I would use the more common term which is Global South. Should we try to ping more people or WikiProjects to obtain more opinions? EMsmile (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have changed the merger tags now to indicate that the proposal is now to merge North–South divide in the World into Global South, as per my comment from 30 April. If there are no objections in the next week or so, or no further discussion, then I'll go ahead and carry out that merger. EMsmile (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the merge as revised. Support a merge of Global South into "North-South divide in the world" with the destination title recognizing both the Global North and Global South. My preferred option is "Global North and South", but I would also support other inclusive titles such as "Global North and Global South", "Global North-South divide", or even the original title of "North-South divide in the world". My reasoning follows:
 * I would like to call attention to WP:AND, which states "Where possible, use a title covering all cases". The title "Global South" in an article that substantially covers both the Global North and Global South would not cover all cases and would not be in alignment with policy. Yes, "Global South" is used twice as often as "Global North", as revealed by this Google ngram. However, twice as much is hardly enough to justify renaming the article entirely to "Global South", especially considering that the "North-South divide in the World" article is 40% larger than the "Global South" article, so the resulting merged article that some are proposing be named "Global South" would actually have 60% of its material be about the North-South divide in general. In fact, much of the "Global South" article as it currently stands is already about comparisons with the Global North and would fit well into the North-South divide, so that 60% figure is probably higher.
 * To address some arguments above:
 * WP:COMMONNAME would dictate that we choose the most common name for the topic of discussion in the article. The topic of discussion would be the North-South divide in general, since the vast majority of the article would be on comparisons between the Global North and Global South, the division's origins, etc. Therefore, we should choose the most common name for the topic as a whole. Here is an ngram of various possibilities. The most common is "North-South divide", but since that is not necessarily talking about the Global North and Global South, it is too vague. "Global North and South" is the next most common, and the precision of its language and its common use makes it my preferred choice. Not too far behind that is "Global North and Global South" - perhaps a bit too long and not common enough, but it does have the advantage of not breaking up the term "Global South", which some may find unidiomatic and/or biased against the Global South. "Global North-South divide" came in last. Unfortunately, I could not do a search for "North-South divide in the world" because it was too long; that being said, the advantage of this name is that it is consistent with other Wikipedia articles on the North-South divide. However, I do think it is a little bit imprecise, because it could theoretically refer to North-South divides around the world. The best title would include the terms "Global North" and/or "Global South" for clarity.
 * With regard to WP:Concise: I'll just reiterate that we should use the most concise title for the concept as a whole. "Global South" is concise for an article about the North-South divide in the same sense that "First World" would be concise for an article about the Three-world model, or that "Yang" would be for an article about yin and yang. Concision must be balanced with precision, and "Global South" is not the right title for an article that covers the Global North and Global South. I believe the most concise title that is also clear is "Global North and South".
 * With regard to the ease of search argument: While "Global South" would likely be the most common search term, we shouldn't necessarily just name Wikipedia articles after the first thing that someone would search. Indeed, most people reading Will and shall probably typed in "will", yet the title contains both terms; most people reading September 11 attacks probably typed in 9/11, yet the article title uses a long-form name which they only hear occasionally. The reason why "Global South" would be a bad name for the merged articles is because, even if the reader searches "Global South", we will be delivering them information about the Global South and the Global North. To call an article anything except for what it is would be needlessly confusing. If you want to preserve a place where people can easily get information only about the Global South, you should just oppose the merger.
 * If your concern is more technical - i.e. that people will have difficulty finding the merged article under a title other than "Global South" since that is what they will be searching - I think we should consider that internal searches will be guided by redirect pages and external searches (e.g. Google) will still be able to find the article regardless of title because of its frequent use of the term "Global South" and the frequency with which other articles link to the article with the phrase "Global South". While true that it might drop a few places in the Google results page for "Global South" under a different title, why shouldn't it? The merged article will be less directly relevant to a query about the "Global South" since it would include a lot of information on the divide in general. We shouldn't try to "game the system" by inaccurately titling the article. We should name the merged article for what it is about (chiefly, the both the Global North and Global South) and go from there. In any case, a title such as "Global North and South" or "Global North and Global South" would contain the query "Global South", so it would likely not be a cause of concern on this front in the same way that "North-South divide in the world" would be.<b style="color:#fff;background:#34c"> Mysteryman</b>blue </b> 07:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Mysterymanblue thank you so much for your detailed analysis, this is very useful indeed! I think you have convinced me almost 100%. However, I think "Global North and South" wouldn't be quite right. It should be either "Global South and North" or "Global South and Global North". I think the emphasis of the new article will be on the Global South, e.g. explaining what the countries in the Global South have in common, so it would be good to have that reflected in the title. Secondly, once we have agreed on the new title, we would move the content from Global South into the current North–South divide in the World, then rename it to our new title, and then redirect Global South to the new title. Is that also how you see it? - Apart from that I think we need to ensure there is no (or very little) overlap with developing country, which is - as a term - somewhat similar to Global South but more practically oriented, less academic/theoretical. I did a big overhaul of developing country and a smaller overhaul of Global South a while ago. EMsmile (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is reasonable to want the article title to be "Global South and North" or "Global South and Global North" because the emphasis of the article would be on the Global South, and I would support a merge under those titles. However, I still think that "Global North and South" or "Global North and Global South" would be better titles. First, WP:AND suggests an alphabetic rule for double-barreled titles, and "North" precedes "South" alphabetically. Second, WP:COMMONNAME suggests we choose the most common name for the combined concept, which - according to this ngram would appear to be "Global North and South" followed distantly by "Global North and Global South" and then "Global South and North" and "Global South and Global North". You can perhaps see this as a North-first bias and feel that it is reasonable that we use a South-first title for a South-tilted article. I think it would then be reasonable to feel that it would be an WP:NPOV violation to use a North-first title. Personally, I am not particularly compelled by this argument, and I see the practice of writing "North-South" over "South-North" as more of an aspect of our language than as a manifestation of imperialism/colonialism. In any case, any of these and titles would be acceptable in my eyes.
 * To be honest, I have never participated in the actual process of merging two pages by moving content from one to the other, so I can't give too much input for your second point. I would imagine that it would make more sense to move content from Global South to this page, since Global South is 1) smaller in length and 2) a constituent topic of "North-South divide in the world". If the merge process takes a while and we choose to merge into Global South, readers of the Global South article might be confused as to why it talks so much about both the Global North and South, but this inconvenience would be minor. The merged article would then have to be moved to the new name, and all of the other names (i.e. "Global South", "North-South divide in the world", "Global North-South divide", "Global North and South", "Global South and North", "Global North and Global South", and "Global South and Global North") should be made to redirect to the merged article. I agree that we should try to reduce overlap with "developing country"; I think that having the main focus be about the Global North-South divide would help deal with this. <b style="line-height:1.1;display:inline-block;transform:skew(-14deg);border-radius:2em;border:solid#34c 1px;overflow:hidden"><b style="color:#fff;background:#34c"> Mysteryman</b>blue </b> 19:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we're getting there. Thank you for the brainstorming and bringing those stats to the table, that's really useful! I didn't know about the preference for alphabetical ordering. I was indeed a bit worried about a touch of imperialism/colonialism, like "us and them". Thought at least having it as "them and us" is perhaps a bit more polite. Overall, I am happy with the different options that have made it into the final round. My gut feeling would be to keep the two terms "Global South" together, even if it makes the title slightly longer. So I think my first choice would be "Global South and Global North". Followed by "Global North and Global South" and "Global South and North". But this is probably biased due to the fact that in my day job I deal a lot with Global South countries (as a synonym for developing countries). I think you have the better arguments based on facts and stats. So what is your first, second and third choice? We can also let it settle for a few days, see if more opinions come in and then carry out the merger and renaming next week. I like the fact that the word "divide" is no longer in the title, and that the word "global" is now in the title. I think that's better than it was before. EMsmile (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My preferences, in order, would be Global North and South, Global North and Global South, Global South and North, Global South and Global North (essentially the ngram frequency order). But again, I would support a merge under any of these titles. <b style="line-height:1.1;display:inline-block;transform:skew(-14deg);border-radius:2em;border:solid#34c 1px;overflow:hidden"><b style="color:#fff;background:#34c"> Mysteryman</b>blue </b> 05:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so then my suggestion would be to rename it to "Global North and Global South". This would be the second choice option for both of us. :-) (your first choice was "Global North and South"; mine was "Global South and Global North"). If there are no objections then I'll do this name change in the next few days. It doesn't have to be set in stone anyhow. Perhaps 6 months from now, a better solution will emerge. At this stage, it will be a better article title than "North–South divide in the World". EMsmile (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I have done the renaming and merging now. Some more work is needed to streamline the article further. Please help if you have time. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Map at top of article
Cyprus and Turkey are blue, indicating, at least according to the map, they are part of the "global north". Why is Northern Cyprus then part of the global south? It's essentially Turkish territory. 2604:3D08:927F:6D80:B0C3:B63D:6B44:F362 (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Agreed. There's other issues as well. Why is Antarctica red? It should be grey, as it's not inhabited in the traditional sense, and administered by countries that are largely part of the Global North (other than maybe Chile and Argentina). Also, why are the high-income Gulf States red, but Kazakhstan is blue? We need a proper source of this; this feels arbitrary. Cortador (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Religion and spirituality
Spirituality tends to be more widespread in the Global South than in the Global North. Countries like Nepal and Brazil are known for their ubiquitous religious presence while India is regarded as the birthplace of four of the world's major religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. In 2013, the election of Pope Francis from Argentina marked the first time in history that a pope has been elected from the Global South.

Outside of the major religions, most of the world's indigenous population live in the Global South. Africa is home to more than 3,000 ethnic groups, while Latin America is home to more than 58 million indigenous people spread across 826 indigenous groups. In 2015, the synthesis of an anti-malarial drug using an herb employed in Traditional Chinese Medicine was awarded a Nobel Prize For Medicine.

Notable religions and spiritual traditions to have come from the Global South include:

 * Islam - Saudi Arabia
 * Hinduism - India
 * Buddhism - India
 * Sikhism - India
 * Taoism - China
 * Jainism - India

Pope Francis is the first modern pope from the Global South - There were several early popes from the Roman provinces of Syria (modern Syria and Lebanon) and Africa (Tunisia and coastal Libya). 2600:4040:7669:4700:1A00:716B:D1D3:DEEB (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Nonsensical map
The map shown to the right here was in the lead of this article until today. I was looking at it and scratching my head, when I looked at the actual source on Commons, which was... nothing. It was copied from a different map (in PNG form), whose just said it was copied from an en-wikipedia map which no longer exists(?).

Since it has no apparent provenance besides presumably being pulled out of someone's hat one day, and because (as others have pointed out) it makes some rather bold and bizarre claims about the state of the world, I am removing it from the lead. jp×g 05:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you tracked down a citation for the map (for the record, it is ). Looking through the actual paper, though, there are a couple issues. First of all, it is not identical to our map: it puts French Guiana, Bosnia, South Korea, Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan in the South, whereas ours puts them in the North. But even apart from that, the paper does not give any citation for where it got the map or the classification of countries. They just say this: Global North cities (e.g., US, European, and Australian cities) have higher greenspace exposure (mean: 45.84%) than Global South cities (mean: 14.39%) (e.g., China, India, and the Middle East). That is, they are not making any claims about Israel or the UAE or Bosnia or Singapore or whatever. But possibly the most concerning issue is that, alongside the lack of a citation for the boundaries they draw, the shading is completely identical to that of our own map: it seems quite likely that they got the image from Commons (and modified it to fit the claims in their paper, which would make it a circular reference, and completely unacceptable. jp×g 22:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Inclusion or exclusion of some countries in the global north/south grouping is more context dependent based on the authors; added this point in the text under the map, along with a better source for the map. Also the map as mentioned in the text under the image is a "traditional estimate," not any accurate representation. Since most of the global north-south maps that are available online are shaded similarly as in this article, its highly unlikely that an article published in a journal of repute like Nature would transclude something from here. Rim sim (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The other reference "The Global North-South Atlas: Mapping Global Change" uses Wikipedia as the only source to cliam that South Korea is in the global north, and doesn't match the map details. I've marked the refs as failed verification as neither matches the details here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The major details of the map are fine, but the map we have has masses of smaller details that line up with nothing. I would suggest the need for a map that doesn't try to be so comprehensive, unless there is a source for the status of Ascension Island. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , There are sources that back the iclusion of Israel and South Korea in Global North.
 * But Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, Taiwan etc. aren't mentioned as part of Global North in any of those sources, so I think this article should stop mentiong HK, MO, SG, and TW. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Different sources use different understandings of what is North and what is South. I suggest a map based on a single one of those definitions with text underneath that explains thos is only one interpretation, rather than the current map that doesn't match anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "The Global North-South Atlas: Mapping Global Change" uses sources that are published in 1980 and 2003-2007. 1980 and 2003-2007 published sources are outdated as of 2023. I suggest using the UNCTAD source because it's published in 2022 and by an intergovernmental organization within the United Nations Secretariat, not just a source based on a definition made or published by one person. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, Taiwan etc. aren't mentioned as part of Global North in any of those sources, so I think this article should stop mentiong HK, MO, SG, and TW. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Different sources use different understandings of what is North and what is South. I suggest a map based on a single one of those definitions with text underneath that explains thos is only one interpretation, rather than the current map that doesn't match anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "The Global North-South Atlas: Mapping Global Change" uses sources that are published in 1980 and 2003-2007. 1980 and 2003-2007 published sources are outdated as of 2023. I suggest using the UNCTAD source because it's published in 2022 and by an intergovernmental organization within the United Nations Secretariat, not just a source based on a definition made or published by one person. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

, I understand that my suggestion/proposal will become the consensus if there isn't any objection. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The UNCTAD list you posted seems quite a bit more authoritative than the rest. Even so, it does have some issues -- how many people who talk about this concept use the UNCTAD definition? I think that it may just be better to have the lead image be a heatmap based on HDI or something like that. jp×g 06:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe the HDI heatmap on the 'defintion' section of this article is needed to become the lead image, instead of File:Global North and Global South.svg. Also, I think that the UNCTAD definition is worthy to mention in the lead section and the 'defintion' section of this article. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both claims. jp×g 16:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any objection to my proposal that 1) replacing the lead image from File:Global North and Global South.svg to a Human Development Index heatmap and 2) mentioning the UNCTAD definition in the lead section and the 'defintion' section of this article? --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 * None at all. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a 7-day waiting period for receiving other users' opinions. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am leaning towards keeping the current map: the article is about the term Global South and Global North which is a simplistic concept, therefore a simplistic map is reasonable. A map on HDI can be in the article as well but not necessarily in the lead. In fact, the HDI map is already there as the second map. Perhaps a compromise would be to have both maps in the lead, one directly below the other. But if the HDI map was the main lead image it would look exactly the same as the article on Human Development Index. @User:117.53.77.84 - I recommend editing with a Wikipedia login as it generally makes communications easier (you don't have to, just saying). EMsmile (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) File:North South Divide.JPG, which is completely based on User:Kingj123's original research, is the original version of File:Global North and Global South.svg. Using a file based on the original research made by one user is totally incompatible to WP:NOR.
 * 2) Several other users beside Kingj123 also compromised File:Global North and Global South.svg. Please view the file's history if you are possible. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * [[File:IMF advanced economies and UN least developed countries.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|
 * [[File:IMF advanced economies and UN least developed countries.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|

{{legend|#00b9fa|Developed countries or cities}} {{legend|#ffb219|Developing countries}} {{legend|#ff562f|Least developed countries}} {{legend|#b9b9b9|Data unavailable}} The latest classifications sorted by the IMF and the UN ]]
 * I don't regard it as "original research" when someone puts a map together that shows in colour those countries that are considered Global North and those that are considered Global South (similar when someone puts a map together with CO2 emissions data, taken from a table of CO2 emissions by country). Either way, it should be a map with exactly two colours, not all the shades in between that the map on HDI would have. The concept of Global North and South is a very simplistic one (and therefore flawed to some extent), which should be visible/obvious/clear also in the map that is used in the lead of the article. There are no "in betweens" in that concept: a country is either North or South. Or maybe one could introduce a third colour, e.g. grey, for "countries that are under discussion". Compare also with the map used at Developing country (thumbnail on the right). EMsmile (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I wish Wikimedia Commons had a map based on the UNCTAD's Global North-South definition, but it didn't, so we need to find another way to replace File:Global North and Global South.svg. For now, using an HDI map or File:IMF advanced economies and UN least developed countries.svg, which you mentioned, is the only solution, I think.
 * 2) File:North South Divide.JPG is Kingj123's original research as they didn't provide any source to back their claim. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's relatively easy to create such a map if there is a table of countries available, like the one from UNCTAD. I haven't done it myself but I have seen others do it. Have we pinged User:Kingj123 into this discussion yet? Maybe they know how to do it from an IT point of view. If you wanted to replace the map in the interim with a better one (temporarily), then why not use the one that is also used at Developing country? I think that would be a better compromise than the HDI map as the HDI map is too nuanced. EMsmile (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah User:Kingj123 seems to be no longer active. Pinging also User:DaddyCell as they recently modified that file. EMsmile (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that using File:IMF advanced economies and UN least developed countries.svg temporarily is another reasonable solution. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine by me. EMsmile (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

So I see that as this edit of 21 October, the "old" map is back in the lead? Is there consensus that this one is better than the one we had before? EMsmile (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong information
"The GDP of the BRICS countries, which are mainly from the Global South, already surpasses that of the G7 club, which is primarily from the Global North."

I traced this source, and it comes back to GDP PPP. This at the very least needs to be stated, but comparing the G7 and BRICS with this metric makes no sense without also dividing by population. I personally think it would be better to compare with Nominal GDP, but if we're using GDP PPP, it should be per capita. Using either GDP PPP per capita or Nominal GDP also puts BRICS back below the G7. Long story short, this sentence should be taken off.

P.S. We also need a source for the sentence before this one. SirShaunIV (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see these edits have already been made now. EMsmile (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Are we keeping them? I don't personally think they belong, but I don't have enough experience to say for certain. SirShaunIV (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

 * Russia is Global North. I can see this has already been fixed up in this edit by User Local Potentate. EMsmile (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

One sided
Someone recently claimed that "definition by the UN shall be considered as the main definition". This is clear example of personal views because there is no reason anywhere that UNCTAD definition should be "main", when UN did not create this concept and there are clearly other definitions that are kind of push to the side.

I don't have desire to discuss how silly it is that Bosnia and Moldova, one of the most poor and underdeveloped countries are considered "developed Global North" while Turkey and Georgia are "developing" Global South. Whole thing is confusing and I can't change that, but at least different views should be presented. Saying UN definition is "main" is just somebody's personal opinion and way of escaping serious questions about this. LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 * First, UNCTAD definition is better than the Brandt line, an outdated 1980s one. Second, Willy Brandt was not the original inventor of the concept of Global North and Global South. Third, the UNCTAD definition is more reliable and authoritative than other sources, which are proposed by just one person or two/three people. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You will understand why editors decided to use the UNCTAD defintion on the lead section and the definition section of this article if you read carefully. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying it is "more reliable" and "more authoritative" is just more examples of personal views and nothing more. There is no rule that something is not reliable if it is proposed by "just one" or "two" scholars. You don't establish authoritativeness by just counting people who contribute to report.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It can't be denied that the UNCTAD definition is the most authoritative definition whatever you say. Actually, it is already mentioned in developed country. By your logic, we can't use any image in the lead section. Do you actually want it? 117.53.77.84 (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi LeontinaVarlamonva, I don't think the POV tag that you added is justified. But let's see. You said: "there are clearly other definitions that are kind of push to the side". Which other definitions do you mean? Are they mentioned yet in the article or not? If not, they could easily be added as alternative definitions (with reliable sources). I do think it makes sense to use the UNCTAD definition for the lead image. If not, which other lead image do you propose then? We all know that the whole concept of Global North and South is a simplistic model and not absolute science. This is explained quite well in the article, isn't it? EMsmile (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Global North and Global South


text:
Lockheed Electra

Lockheed Electra refers to two distinct aircraft designs:

 * Lockheed Model 10 Electra, a ten-passenger piston engine aircraft of the 1930s, which had two immediate variants:
 * Lockheed Model 12 Electra Junior, a six-passenger scaled-down version of the Model 10 Electra
 * Lockheed Model 14 Super Electra, a twelve-passenger scaled-up version of the Model 10 Electra
 * Lockheed L-188 Electra, a 98-passenger turboprop aircraft of the 1960s

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Lockheed Electra