Talk:List of countries by regional classification

Belarus[edit]

Actually Belarus is in the Northern Hemisphere not the "Global South". πr² (t • c) 00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why Australia in the North??? Even its name, from the Latin "Australis", means "south". πr² (t • c) 01:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Global North / South classifications are not meant to be strictly geographic, but rather follow the somewhat idiosyncratic definition given at the bottom of the page in the Sources section and, more broadly, the definition of Global South here. Does that clarify things? I agree that the whole idea of using a cardinal direction to specify a non-geographic region is confusing, but I think this use of the term is relatively standard. Evan (WMF) (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that does clarify things. After reading the section I missed (at the bottom of the page), I am a bit confused: "For the purposes of our discussion, the Global North includes Australia, Canada, ..., and all of Europe (including Russia)..." If all of Europe is in the Global North, doesn't that mean that Belarus and Ukraine are? Or am I missing something here? πr² (t • c) 01:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe by "Europe" they just meant "European Union", or SEPA if you care about the funny small states. :) Probably they didn't mean the CoE, especially as nowadays USA are threatening to send tanks to the border so it feels like from that side of the Atlantic they're not liking those post-WWII creations much any longer. --Nemo 06:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global South as a term[edit]

I'm glad to see this isn't going away, even with the full lot of disdain the word has around, someone keeps doubling down on "Global south". The classification doesn't make sense, because it is inherently flawed - geographically, contextually, etymologically - someone always points out something wrong. I've had a theory for an year now that if you look closely enough, all Global South eludes to is "non-whites", the classifications differ from list to list, but there is something very wrong if you look only at ethnic, racial lines. I have re-iterated more times than I can count that this terminology should be slowly abandoned for something more specific. There have been several people who have objected to the word and its connotations. Why are we still perpetuating this officially? Theo10011 (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because despite the incessant complaining, a clearly superior alternative that doesn't involve more than three words is yet to be offered.

And your racial interpretation is refuted by the facts: e.g. Belarus is a very "white" country (hey, it's even in its name), Taiwan is GN while China is GS (according to this list, which I don't accept btw), etc. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't completely understand your point here. What do you mean by "superior alternative"? or the point about "doesn't involve more than three words". By that distinction, I suppose in the last century the term 'Negro' was the superior alternative and involved fewer words than say 'African-American' or 'African-descent', as were other terms for homosexuals, or even foreigners. It is clearly offending some people, while most have given up, I still don't understand the hesitation against abandoning it. Is "developing" more than three words? Theo10011 (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to comment on your straw man suggesting I'm a racist. A superior alternative would be one fewer people complain about. It needs to be three words or less to be useful, because the whole point is to find shorthand for just giving a list of countries. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply you were racist, and by now, you must have realized that I don't pull any punches - if I remotely thought that you were, it would be here in plain view - I never remotely thought of you as that (I know I butt heads but give me some credit for believing in a few people). With that aside, I meant to state "Superior Alternatives" are relative and transient when looked at through history, further expanding that length of the term isn't directly related to its value - some times a shorter word was and could be hurtful, while the new politically-correct generation goes at lengths to not offend, and better describe someone when a single word sufficed for the earlier generation - doesn't mean the older words were right. I hope those two points didn't get conflated. Let me state again, I don't remotely consider you bigoted, and I do admire you and your voice, for what its worth. Theo10011 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are refusing to pay heed to the "incessant complaining". At some point, I suppose your office can sit down and agree to use a word like "developing", "BRIC", "Third world", or the swahili word I believe you and Abbas came up with to replace "global south" during the 2011 chapters meeting - I remember all those times and the emails you wrote since you were hired, mentioning that you will try and find a better word at some point. I suppose this is you giving up? Theo10011 (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at it that way, I suppose. It's just a terrible waste of time to keep flogging this dead horse. I have absolutely no interest in the political or theoretical wars around the term. My interest is in fostering actual work in and for those parts of the world. This discussion accomplishes nothing toward that end, hence I am not interested in it. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is a terrible waste. At the same time, the last thing you can blame me for is not being consistent. I thought with your recent rise within the ranks and the influence you have, a simple change of official terminology would have been easy for you to achieve - a single meeting, or a staff memo would have gone a long way. Anyway, I held you to your words for the most part, which you seem to be not interested in anymore. I'll move on I suppose from my tiny wars, hopefully the wiki would remember. Theo10011 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me point out another thing - 'CIS' - which I assume refers to Commonwealth of Independent states, isn't a universally recognized collective. This list, which is far from exhaustive, is separating and including small former soviet bloc countries, to that extent, I suppose a list like this can never be complete without mentioning every nation on earth and delineating it between south and north.

I agree. But again, getting this "right", for whatever value of "right" you/others might agree on, makes very little difference to the actual work we are (I am, at least; are you?) here to do. So I'm not interested. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on a classification that has been thoroughly and exhaustively complained about for the past 2 years. I didn't solicit your involvement in the matter, I do appreciate it, but please don't let me keep you, as you keep stating you are not interested repeatedly. Theo10011 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The telecommunication union isn't defining geopolitical powers, the person tagging them as north and south is. The telecom union actually used UN M49 distinction to classify countries between developed and developing - which seems far more simplistic and plausible, compared to whoever went about tagging them arbitrarily as north or south. As for my racial interpretations, clearly objections and surprise to the term originated from me alone, others won't see a similar trend - When the entire continent of Africa is the "Global South", the entire continent of South America, even mexico, so are all of the listed Arab states, and most of Asia, granted Asia has 2-3 exceptions to disprove it all completely. Theo10011 (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the ITU is a completely arbitrary source for this list, and I don't know why it was chosen (I did not author this page). If pressed for a well-defined list, though certainly not without flaws, I'd point at the one by the UN's HDI index. But wait! I'm not interested in arguing about that one either!

How about spending some time helping us actually accomplish something? Does that fall entirely outside your interest? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you think you accomplish or others accomplish here daily. I'm voicing my opinion on a forgotten issue, I still remember it. You constantly state you are not interested in this discussion or honoring your own words from some point ago, completely alright and your prerogative to move on. Sadly, I'm one of those unfortunate people who value people's words and don't forget as easily. But I suppose no one is interested in arguing with me anymore. Good luck with accomplishing things, I'll continue voicing my opinions when I can until I too, get tired and become dis-interested. Kind Regards, old friend. Theo10011 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I must say, you comment on-wiki in-line like emails, it gets fairly confusing. It's uncommon from my exposure on en.wp, maybe it's one of those cultural things. Still seems odd and harder to follow. Theo10011 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asaf, I disagree that alternatives have not been proposed. You could just use the good old "undeveloped countries" or variants thereof. The issue is political correct, as usual. --Nemo 06:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine and Belarus in developed now[edit]

Now the source puts Ukraine and Belarus to developed, not developing (archived) --Ilya (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This table is off and needs to be deleted or significantly reworked[edit]

CIS is not a geographic classification, besides, as of today there are 9 CIS members, Ukraine and Georgia left, and Moldova may have too.
Classifying Russia and Romania as Global North and Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan (as well as Georgia and Armenia) as Global South is lunacy; likewise, classifying US territories as Global South is at best questionnable; I would suggest that post-communist Europe and Asia should be left out of this classification entirely. Global South is typically reserved for Africa and Latin American, it is not an easily fit even for Asia.
Global telecommunications Union is no authority on those classifications that are contested even by development scholars (see the requisite article on this in Wiki)

Klaustrofobia (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with reality...[edit]

Belarus is north and large parts of Russia in European Russia, Siberian Russia and Far East Russia with its steppes and deserts are south. It seems more like a, sorry to say that, a propagandistic poltic map based on geopolitics which were described in the "Heartland Theory". Its about Eurasian politics. I hope really Wikipedia distances itself from it. Russia and other parts can't be classified in north or south. Russia would fit in north-south. --85.212.162.147 18:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]