Commons:Deletion requests/File:First second third worlds map.svg: Difference between revisions

IT wrongly list countries as 1st, 2nd and 3rd World: i.e. Yugoslavia was non-aligned (in fact, was a founding member of non-aligned movement), yet here it is 2nd world, clearly wrong. It should be either deleted or re-touched. Svetlana Miljkovic (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this deletion request page , India was a part of the third world countries but not any more. Though there are few issues like poverty in the rural area of the country it is considered among the developed countries and has the capacity to help countries which are in need, India have proved to be a self sufficient country, the biggest democracy of the world and is present in almost every highest production list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.88.37.192 (talk • contribs) this is a Single Purpose Account-the user has made no other edits.

•  Keep We don't delete in that case, we correct the image. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Don't delete, It r hwlp me do mai hw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.202.117 (talk • contribs)

•  Delete as original research. There is no way to correct it as there are no reliable sources to say which country is first/second/third world. I voted to delete these four years ago after the same issues came up then. Also adding to the nomination:
• File:Map of First World Countries.svg
• File:Actual Third World.PNG
• File:Third world countries map world.gif
• File:Third world countries map world 2.PNG
• File:World map worlds first second third.GIF
• File:World map worlds first second third.gif
• File:World map with unsystematically purple coloured states.png
• File:Firstworld.png
• File:Secondworld-extended.png
• File:2º Mundo.PNG
• File:Developed nation.png
• File:Developed nation edit1.svg

Roke (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep First off, Wikimedia Commons does not actually have a "no original research" policy as such. Second, images are not generally deleted here due to legitimate differences of interpretation. They can be deleted for containing blatant obvious uncorrected factual errors, or if they were created with a deliberate intent to hoax and deceive -- but it's really not the role of Commons to take sides concerning matters which are legitimately disputed. We can provide graphics expressing various interpretations, and then it's really up to each of the individual language Wikipedias to decide which particular images they want to use. It's not our role to make these decisions for the Wikipedias. Third, as a general matter, the fact that some classifications have blurry borders or fuzzy edges does not mean that the classification is useless... AnonMoos (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not legitimate differences - they are unreferenced points of view. They need to be based on a published source saying which countries are which, or be something like 'top 50 countries by HDI'. (Example of a map with sources) Keeping these maps will just cause endless arguments over which country to include which can't be resolved because the notion of what is first or third world is vague. Unlike some other classifications with blurry edges (e.g. language map), these are biased to begin with - it's saying some countries are better than others, while a language map is saying a different language is used, not that one is better than another. Roke (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have just illustrated the main point of the three-worlds theory, that some countries are better than others. It's a global take on the law of the jungle, not everyone can be the cheetah, someone has to be the slow wildebeest. We don't just remove information because you don't like it, that is a staple of Wikimedia policy. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better in which ways? Different countries are better than others in different ways, to use your analogy, just as a sparrow can fly away from the cheetah. Imagine how difficult would it be to classify all animals as either first- second- or third- rate. Roke (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be incorporated into a Wikipedia article, it's certainly very desirable that they be sourced, but that's a matter for the various Wikipedias to enforce at their own level, and not particularly a valid reason for the images to be deleted from Commons (as long as the images do not have blatant obvious uncorrected factual errors, and were not created with a deliberate intent to hoax and deceive). AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]