Talk:Periphery countries

Educational assignment discussions

Citation issue

New to editing Wikipedia pages, but I noticed citation number 18 ( Dunn, Kawana, Brewer, Trade Globalization since 1795, American Sociological Review, 2000 February, Vol. 65 article, Appendix with the country list) the bit with the Appendix with the country list is dead. Which makes the country list on this page unreliable, not sure where the original data came from. Just putting this out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.133.211 (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Heads up

I want to give interested editors heads up that this article will likely a become a subject of an educational assignment aiming to expand it and raise to to a Good Article class over the next month or so. This assignment has led to good results in the past, but please note that with the exception of the course supervisor (myself) the new editors who will be working on this article are new to Wikipedia. Any assistance and guidance you can offer to them will be much appreciated, and let's keep this in mind :) Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys I posted on Piotr's page stating how we broke up the sections and then I explained in a little bit of depth the subsections i plan on doing. If you guys want to edit and include what subsections you intend on doing please go ahead and do so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HareJ10 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Plan for article

- Background (Lou) - How periphery countries form (Rachel) - How periphery countries interact with core/semi-periphery countries (Chris) - How countries rise out of periphery status (Jeremy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HareJ10 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

How countries rise out of periphery status

I plan on breaking this part up into a few different sub-sections. The sections I intend on doing are the basic background on possible ways in which periphery countries can escape their periphery status, a few examples of certain countries and how they did this, and how these countries then adapt and take part in the global market. I mainly plan on focusing on countries who have achieved this feat within the last 50 to 100 years in order to give a more modern outtake on this topic. HareJ10 (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

How periphery countries form

For my part of this project I am going to first give a basic overview of how periphery countries come to be and reasons that they are so behind, then I will provide some examples of periphery countries from past centuries, then I plan on focusing on more modern periphery countries. - Rachel

Some helpful sources

Hey guys here are some sources I thought would help you guys with writing your parts, I'll try to put which individual section its helpful for in parentheses. The Modern World System (Wallerstein) (all) World Cities (talks mostly about cities, would be good for how the periphery countries form) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.18.118 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)(24.3.18.118 (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

Some Info

Thank you very much Jeremy for those helpful sources.The modern world system article is very helpful. In that article I found some good basic information about periphery countries that I will use. I read that development of technology is one factor used to determine whether a country is periphery or not. The periphery countries are behind because they are exploited by the wealthy, independent core nations. This imbalance of strength and wealth is important in order to keep the system maintained. Periphery countries are also behind because they have no central government or they are being controlled by another nation. Furthermore, periphery nations are known for exporting raw materials to core countries.I also found some information about different time periods. Here is a little of it: in the 1640s areas such as northeastern Europe are periphery nations, at the start of the 19th century Asia and Africa are considered periphery nations. Asia and Africa being periphery nations enabled the United States and Germany to remain successful core nations. -Rachel

Roman - comment from another group

Hey guys it's Roman from the "Great Divergence" group. I'm posting early because I'm going away for the weekend and won't have internet access. I know it's extremely early in your posting so maybe you're thinking what I'm thinking and just haven't posted it yet. I think there are so many factors that lead to being a periphery country and you should mention a few more. Education/literacy levels, natural resources (an abundance that's exploited or a lack thereof, both can lead to periphery), etc. Infrastructure is a bit broad. You guys can mention the factors that make up an infrastructure, though, such as a healthcare system of some sort, transportation routes, reliable currency, etc.

Let our group know what you think needs help! Thanks guys. RomanHarlovic (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick - Comment from another group

Hey just commenting on your article. I just wanted to note that periphery and core countries obviously go hand in hand because they are complete opposites. I would check my group's references for information and I think it would be a good idea to check your groups's references too. The information both of the groups need will be in the same place so please pass along any good references you come across. Our group set up the core country page in a chronological order with the different centuries. I am not saying you need to do the same we are doing but periphery countries changed over time and this might be a good way to present who were the periphery countries and hoe they changed through time. Just a thought. Good luck with the rest of your article. Prg22 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We thought about doing our article like this but decided it would be better to have a short overview of the time line of periphery countries and then talk more about how they develop, interact, and escape in the more modern world system. Also thanks for suggesting your references they are helpful.71.61.47.17 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Just created this for us all to post thoughts and ideas in one place. I found a listing of the top 10 poorest countries as of 2007. If any of you think it will fit well in your section let me know, if not I will put it in my section. Thanks HareJ10 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just finished giving all the basic info. on how countries can rise out of the periphery. Still have to add some examples and how these countries adapt to their new status. I also still plan on adding a bit more to each section. If any one has any comments, problems, or ideas please let me know. Thanks.HareJ10 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Derek - Comment from another group

Hi, it still looks like you guys have some work to do. Your reference to china in the 'background' sections seems a bit confusing, since in the 14th century they were very much a core country. You might want to go a little more in depth on proto-industrialization in your 'ways of escaping' section. This is the process by which a county becomes ready to industrialize. Good luck with the project. Derekl366 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the industrialization section suggestion I will look into it and probably add some on that. 24.3.18.118 (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey group

I hope everyone is having a good weekend. I know we still have a lot of information to add, and I was wondering what pictures we would want to add if we still want to? I think the other groups are doing a great job with their setup and content. After reading a few other group members comments I agree with them that it would be beneficial to take note of what information the core country group is including because their topic is so similar.-Rachel

Yea pictures would still be good. If you want you could just put them up on here (if thats possible) and we could agree on which ones we like the best, or we could just each include ones that we think best suit are parts. Up to you.24.3.18.118 (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Luke's comments

Hey guys, make sure you add more sources to the intro, background, and formation sections. I would also add to the background to gain a better understanding of the role periphery countries have played throughout history. I like the inclusion of the way to escape section, although I would name it "ways to advance" to escape a biased tone. It looks like you still have quite a bit to do so keep at it. LBPearson (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Group 1! The site is looking good. I agree with Luke - I think you guys might want to have a little more references only because otherwise your info may be deleted. Also, you might want to jazz it up with some pictures or something so it's not so black and white. (I can't really talk though, because I couldn't figure it out - even with a lot of help!) Other than that, I found everything you had to say very informative. I also thought your outline was interestingly laid out. You covered a lot of good points, especially with respect to what we have learned in class. Good job and keep up the good work! See you Monday! AngGor (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris: Comments

Looked at the core countries page and it looked good. They had moving maps which was pretty nice. I liked how they had the breakdown over the years like we are doing to, it looks nice. I'm going to do my section tomorrow and have it ready for good article submission on monday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctn4 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok sounds good. I think the direction you've started taking is perfect for your section and it looks like it will fit in very well. HareJ10 (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Lolia: Comment from group 3 member

Hi. Good job so far. I do think that it might be helpful if you choose a country that was once peripheral and illustrate how they became a core nation or at least on the way to being a developed nation. I understand this is still a work in progress but perhaps flesh out the concept of a peripheral country; maybe give more history and discuss how a core country can become a peripheral country and vice versa. I also agree with Roman in his suggestion in broadening and explaining the reasons why and how a country becomes peripheral. Good job and good luck!! Helgacrane (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes this was my idea to do under the examples section, but I am still working on it. Thanks for the suggestion.24.3.18.118 (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Review by Piotrus

subject:

• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as necessary. Please look at what makes the core countries and semi-periphery countries longer, and whether those approaches are appropriate here. Please see if anything can be expanded upon. In particular, I'd expect to see a historical overview (which countries where peripheries and why) and a discussion (examples) of modern peripheries. Examples section like here would be very nice as well.
• The lead should also be expanded (of course, after the article is). A proper lead usually has two-three paragraphs, each composed of several sentences. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The lead should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• When making any argument or description, please keep in mind that you should tie it to the your subject (periphery countries). So, for example, if you chose to write a short section on Africa, it should not be a "general history or overview of Africa", but "whether and why Africa has been and is a periphery country" (and so on))

technical:

• The lead should always only summarize information present in the article; it should never contain information that is not repeated (usually in more details) in the main body (see WP:LEAD)
• If sections are too short (few sentences), they should probably be merged into a related, larger section. For example, the two-sentence "Interactions" sections is way too short be stay as it is.
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.  Done
• Each sentence, unless it contains uncontroversial, generally known information ("Earth orbits the Sun") should contain an inline reference. There are multiple sentences and even some full paragraphs that are not referenced. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
• When citing sources, in particular books, exact page numbers are needed. There are some book sources cited that are missing a page number.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
• This article has progressed beyond a WP:STUB, thus please remove the stub templates from it.  Done

Lastly, when you address those concerns, please make a note here. Also, there is a number of valid points and suggestions made by other editors in the discussion above, please reply to them when addressing them (you are allowed to disagree with such suggestions, but if you do, please explain there why you chose not to heed them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind I am going to put a done in parentheses next to each thing as they are completed. Thanks for the feedback.HareJ10 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure; you may want to use {{Done}} for more visibility. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Group

Okay, so I've finally showed up, sorry I'm so late to the scene I've done some more work on the background portion but it still seems a bit short, especially considering Piotrus's comments I've found a map of the world on Wiki images that we can use since our site is graphics starved at the moment. I just have top figure out what countries are considered peripheral and color them in. Naboc1 (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok that sounds great. Hopefully we can have this article ready for good article submission within the next few days, keep up the good work.HareJ10 (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I made the map, check it out! I have to talk to Piotr to figure out if it's okay and how to cite the source of the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naboc1 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Map looks great and yea I'm not 100% sure on how to cite it. Nicely done though.HareJ10 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, the map does look really good. Thank you. -Rachel —Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelJA (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Status

Hey guys just put our page up for good article review so just check here frequently to see what the reviewers are suggesting. Also keep working away on the page. Thanks.HareJ10 (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Periphery countries/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll give the formal checklist against the Good article criteria first, followed by more detailed comments. As (I hope) Piotrus has made clear, any criticism here is not necessarily criticism of the contents of the article, but to a great extent is measuring whether it complies with Wikipedia's policies in given areas.

Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This article's had the good luck to have been visited by Malleus Fatuorum, one of Wikipedia's best cleaner-uppers, and thus the spelling and layout are up to scratch. See my comments below for why I've not currently signed off on criterion 1b.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article's been in existence for such a short time, it's impossible to sign off on "stability". That won't count against it, as I see no sign of any dissenting view editwarring against the current version.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. I've not currently signed off on criterion 1b ("it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation") due to a relatively minor issue with the layout. At the moment, the formatting of the section headers makes it appear to have an empty "Interactions" section (most obvious if you look at the table of contents). If the subsequent sections are intended to be part of a broader Interactions section, the headers need to be nested one level deeper (ask Piotrus what I mean by this if you're not familiar with Wikicoding; basically, they all need one more = sign than they currently have). I've not fixed this myself, just in case the intention is to expand out Interactions with text and have it as a separate section.  Done
2. There's no problem with the references, but you may want to consider using Template:Citation rather than the "raw" references you're using. It automatically tidies up the references, making the urls of the weblinks less obtrusive, and makes sure that the article (and anything added to the article by anyone else in future) has all its references in a standard format.
3. I'm taking it on faith that the topic is fully covered; there are no obvious gaps I can see, but this isn't a field with which I'm familiar.
4. The article contains a mixture of British ("specialise") and US ("labor") spellings; standardize(ise) on one.

I'm on the verge of signing off on this as I think it meets the current GA criteria other than the minor points I mention. However, I am going to make a couple of strong suggestions:

One is that in some places, there appears to be ambiguity (such as between "…periphery nations are exploited by core nations" and "some nations decide to be isolationist")—presumably an ultra-isolationist country such as 14th-century China or 19th-century Japan, while a "periphery country" by the definition used, is not actually in any relationship, exploitative or otherwise, with other countries.

The other is that while the lead (rightly) makes it clear that the concept of a periphery country is a part of a particular broader theory and not a universally accepted concept, the rest of the article appears to have been written on the assumption that the theory is correct, and contain language that implies acceptance of the theory ("must", "obviously" etc). This is not going to lead to the article being failed as a Good Article, but I would recommend making it clearer that this is a particular viewpoint, not an undisputed fact. (See Intelligent design for a good, albeit overlong, example of how to write about a theory that doesn't have universal acceptance.)

Reviewer:  – iridescent 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you I will take this into account and fix what is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.18.118 (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes we do plan to extend interactions and it is currently in the works. Thanks. HareJ10 (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Interim comments

I'm not going to do a "full" review at this stage, as I can see it's still being quite heavily worked on. A couple of points in the meantime: Malleus's point about Russia ("periphery" on the map, "core" in the text) still needs addressing; I appreciate that the list of periphery/non-periphery countries used for the map is drawn from a reliable source, but in particular if Russia is treated as a periphery country on the map but as a core country in the text the reason for this discrepancy needs to be explained, otherwise readers are just going to be confused. There are some other issues with the map—French Guiana shown as a periphery country, despite being a fully-integrated département of France and not an independent country, the Argentine half of Tierra del Fuego a different color to mainland Argentina, a non-existent island country off the coast of Brazil… The article could probably do with explanations of how the country types are defined (Dubai, Slovenia or Singapore, for instance, certainly don't suffer from "lack of technology, unstable government, and poor education and health systems" which is the definition used in the text). The map used on the core countries article seems to be drawn from a different data-set, and to my eye looks to far more accurately represent the divide.

I'm also sceptical about the whole Stabilized government section. I can think of any number of dictatorships with considerably more stable governments than the Western democracies, and with the (arguable) exception of Iraq I can't think of a military action by any country (core, peripheral, or otherwise) in the past 20 years with protection of markets as the driving objective. If this is what the theory says (the cited source isn't available online so I can't check), it needs to be very clear that this is what this particular theory says, not what is widely accepted. For an article like this, on a topic that's open to debate, it needs to be made clear where every statement has been sourced, regardless of the fact that it makes the article look cluttered with citations. It also needs to be made clear what is a fact ("During the early 1900s the economy of the Russian Empire was a backward, primarily agrarian country with isolated pockets of heavy industries") and what is the personal opinion of a particular academic ("As a country becomes richer, it is able to build more schools and better fund the schools already built. This was seen in Russia after the October Revolution"). I don't really want to plaster the article with {{citation needed}} tags at this stage while it's still being expanded, but at some point over the next few days I'll go through and mark up the facts are disputable enough to warrant their own citations. – iridescent 19:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments on the map used in the core articles: it is based on this classification, which is an alternative classification to the core/semi-periphery/periphery classification. For a less controversial classification fitting this article, I'll once again suggest checking the lists by Wallenstein here (as far as I can tell those books are not available on Google Print, so yes, it will entitle a trip to the library...).

On the subject of citations needed: as I said earlier, every sentence should be referenced (and don't forget about page numbers). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Update

As Piotrus has said, there are still a lot of statements that need citations. I'll leave the review to give time to fix these at least until Piotrus says that the assignment has finished, but as things stand the article is going to fail due to the volume of uncited potentially contentious material. Obviously, the history section—which currently ends in the 15th century—needs to be completed as well.

There's also one statement which—no matter how reliably sourced it is just plain untrue; "At the beginning of the 19th century, Asia and Africa were considered periphery and their lack of development enabled the United States and Germany to remain successful core nations". At the beginning of the 19th century, North Africa and West Asia were dominated by the Ottoman Empire which in this period was a full-blown superpower; the United States was a narrow strip of coastal European settlements, virtually cut off from the world economy; Germany wouldn't even exist as a country for a further 70 years and consisted of a bunch of squabbling principalities devastated by the Napoleonic wars and the hyper militarist failing state of Prussia. – iridescent 14:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

I'd like to make a few additional comments, if I may. I think the article's generally on the right lines, but apart from the issues that Iridescent has raised I see a few others as well. It's Iridescent's choice though as to how important these are to this nomination, not mine.

• The article veers between "semi-peripheral status" and "semi-periphery status", both of which redirect to Semi-periphery countries.

• I think the lead is too short to adequately summarise the article.  Done
• I find the large map in the lead to be a little overpowering, but more importantly, I don't understand it. Russia, for instance, is shown as a periphery country, coloured red, but it's one of the examples cited of a country that developed into a core country.

• Section headings like "Rising up" and "Ways to escape" appear to me to be revealing a little too much about the political stance of this article's editors.  Done

• The Education section is completely uncited.  Done

• "At the beginning of the 19th century, Asia and Africa were considered periphery nations ...". Neither Asia nor Africa are nations, they're continents.

• "Furthermore, other reasons that keep nations in the periphery is the lack of agricultural and mechanization." The article needs to checked through for this kind of thing. "Other reasons" is plural, so it ought to be "... are the lack of agricultural and mechanization". But I'm not sure what that means anyway. Should it be "agricultural mechanization"?

Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you we will try to go through your list and fix all of this. We appreciate your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.18.118 (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC) tried fixing the lead let me know what you think, thanks HareJ10 (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed headings to Ways to Improve and Economic Possibilities, hopefully these sound better. Also trying to find more sources for education. Thanks HareJ10 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Piotrus

On the subject of article being comprehensive and properly covering the sibject, as I noted above, it needs a list of countries considered peripheries in the modern day (such as the one found here). Further, the article has two examples sections - this is confusing; I'd suggest discussing the examples in one dedicated section. If the goal is to provide a historical overview of how countries become (and stop being) peripheries (which is a very good and even a necessary idea), I'd suggest modeling it on a history section found here (see also a similar section in the core countries article here).

As Malleus noted, this map is confusing - which era does it represent? I assume it represents the modern times, but it is not clear. It really needs sources, and I will review them - because as it is now, I find categorization of many countries as peripheries on it confusing (Greece, Taiwan, Iceland... just to name a few, I could go on, plus there is a bunch of cases where islands belonging to various core countries are treated as peripheries: Hokkaido for Japan, Sicily and Sardinia for Italy, Corsica for France, Greenland for Denmark, Balearic Islands for Spain...). I applaud the creation of a dedicated map, but I'd suggest basing it on an estabilished source (once again, I'll link to this).

PS. The article has lost its categories. Please restore them (it was properly categorized few days ago).

So, to sum up my comments on content: 1) add a list of modern peripheries 2) fix the map 3) add a section on "History", describing which (major) countries were peripheries in the centuries past). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the history will soon be included in the background info. We will try to organize this a little bit better with the examples. We will also take the other comments into account.HareJ10 (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by White Shadows

(Yes I know it's an odd name)

• Well for starters, this may be small but the map has a few mistakes in it. Sicily is red while mainland Italy is blue. Same with Sardinia and Corsica. The most northern island of Japan is also Red while the rest of the island chain is blue. (I'm guessing that all of Japan should be blue) There may be a few more of these but that's just what I saw in one glance.
• As for the citations, can you be a bit more specific than "Fitzpatrick. The Russian Revolution. Oxford University Press." GA's have to have citations that have the first and last name of the author, a page number and the publisher and publishing year. There are also some bare URL's that ned to be fixed.  Done
• Some sections are in need or writeing and others are totaly unsourced.
• Is this article part of a series of articles? (does this have anything in common with another aticle?) If so then a template at the bott om of the page may bee usefull for navigation
• Just a suggestion, the refs don't need to mention every detail in every citation. That's what "Bibliography" sections or "Work cited" sections are for. Take a look at another GA, like World War II (one which I helped to promote) for an example.
• I'll take a closer look at the text adn let you all know of any other issues. Good luck!

--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 00:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I will look into reciting the book I used I was unaware page numbers were needed when i first cited it. Also thanks for noting the problems on the map we will try to straighten that out asap. We appreciate all of your guys comments and time and will put our best effort into fixing everything wrong. HareJ10 (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. If you need any help with the map just ask. I can re=upload it with the correct colors if you'd like me to.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be great if you don't mind. Thanks. HareJ10 (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Review complete

While this has improved considerably over the course of the review, I'm going to have to close this as not passed at this stage. While the Good Article requirements don't require everything to be cited, they do require everything open to a reasonable challenge to be cited, and as it stands there are too many instances where it's not clear what's an accepted fact and what's the opinion of a particular academic.

Not being a "good article" does not mean this is a "bad article"; it means that it doesn't comply sufficiently with Wikipedia's policies and protocols. If at any time you think it's ready, do feel free to go to WP:GAN and renominate this. – iridescent 15:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Finishing touches

Hey guys just wanted to let you know I just finished up most of my section, adding references and fixing a few minor things. If anyone needs helps with any last minute things just post here and I'll see what I can do. Overall the page looks pretty good and hopefully we can get good article status. HareJ10 (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Map

Thanks, for the comments. I'll fix up the map tomorrow night and add the source for the information. Naboc1 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed sourcing is necessary. If Poland and Czech, although quite developed, are painted red for the size of their trade, then why the Gulf Oilers are red too? Have you considered the EU as an economic entity, rather than a red/blue patchwork? East of Borschov (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Map

The map has been fixed however I have question out to Piotr on how to cite it properly. Naboc1 (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

List

Added a list of the current periphery countries that I found in the appendix of a paper that was written by a few professors in the sociology department at Johns Hopkins. I also created a new section for it entitled current periphery. --Ctn4 (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job. The source is reliable, although reliable does not mean correct. I'd suggest you look at the lists from Wallenstein's (see sources here) and see if they are any different. Remember: in social sciences, it is not surprising to find two (or more) different definitions (or lists of what constitutes periphery, for example). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done it looks greatHareJ10 (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Map

The Map has been fixed and cited. Naboc1 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think there are a couple more problems (some very minor, and you may have some more important things to worry about)—
  • Is East Timor really meant to be semi-periphery, rather than periphery?
  • The Argentine part of Tierra del Fuego has a different color to Argentina itself; Hainan has a different color to mainland China; and an island in the mouth of the Amazon has a different color to mainland Brazil.
  • The border between Serbia and Montenegro is missing from the map (as is the one between Kosovo and both Serbia and Montenegro, though it's arguable whether that should be there at all).
  • Cabinda and pieces of the borders between Burundi and Tanzania and between Senegal and Guinea-Bissau are missing.
  • There are also small gaps in the borders between Benin and Nigeria, between Cameroon and the Central African Republic, and between Estonia and Russia.
  • It looks like Israel is a darker shade of blue than other core countries.
• Ucucha 20:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

History

Started the section that will outline the history of periphery countries in the world. I plan on separating it into four sections (1400s, 1450-1760,1760-1900,1900's) and then possibly incorporating the list of current periphery with a description of the current periphery at the end. Also I will hopefully be able to find some maps that outline the periphery for each different era. --Ctn4 (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Finding the maps may be tough, but as Lou demonstrated, if one has a reliable list, one can simply create them (and for the record I consider creating maps an extra effort worth extra credit). As creating maps takes time, I'd suggest focusing on the 13th-15th century era, and using Abu-Lughod work as a source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok sounds like a solid plan. If you need help with anything just post here. HareJ10 (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The history section really should've been finished few days ago. I hope you can do it in time - but there is not much time left... I'd suggest you try to focus on describing periphery countries in the world systems we discussed - you don't have to do it for the entire human history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Figured since this hasn't been reviewed yet I would try to clean it up a little bit. Moved some of the sections around for a better flow. Let me know if you guys have any other suggestions. HareJ10 (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I still have not found a better source of peripheral countries than that which appeared in the American Sociological Review paper. Naboc1 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

New Mexico history

How does unstabled governments make a country weak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.125.58 (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Periphery countries. 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/20090306210823/http://marriottschool.byu.edu/emp/WPW/Class%209%20-%20The%20World%20System%20Perspective.pdf to http://marriottschool.byu.edu/emp/WPW/Class%209%20-%20The%20World%20System%20Perspective.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please check page number for ref to Kardulias

This is from WorldCat about the sections in the book edited by P Nick Kardulias 1999. Page 203 is the start of an article by Robert J Jeske. If that is the source, then the citation should show his name and contribution, in the Interactions section of this article. The inline citation would add, if page 203 is correct and matches the pagination shown here, with a pipe before each term, contributor-last=Jeske contributor-first=Robert J. contribution=World-Systems Theory, Core-Periphery Interactions, and Elite Economic Exchange in Mississippian Societies . If instead the person who chose this source meant the article by the man who is also the editor of this book, then put contribution=Multiple Levels in the Aegean Bronze Age World-System and change the page number to the correct page. The google book url was shortened using a Wikipedia tool.

1 World-Systems and Evolution: An Appraisal / Thomas D. Hall 1 --

2 Goodness of Fit: On the Relationship Between Ethnographic Data and World-Systems Theory / Mark T. Shutes 25 --

3 Legitimation Crises in Prehistoric Worlds / Peter N. Peregrine 37 --

4 The Changing Structure of Macroregional Mesoamerica: The Classic-Postclassic Transition in the Valley of Oaxaca / Gary M. Feinman 53 --

5 Negotiated Peripherality in Iron Age Greece: Accepting and Resisting the East / Ian Morris 63 --

6 Production Within and Beyond Imperial Boundaries: Goods, Exchange, and Power in Roman Europe / Peter S. Wells 85 --

7 The Emerging World-System and Colonial Yucatan: The Archaeology of Core-Periphery Integration, 1780-1847 / Rani T. Alexander 103 --

8 Thoughts on the Periphery: The Ideological Consequences of Core/Periphery Relations / Patricia A. Urban, Edward M. Schortman 125 --

9 Rethinking World-Systems: Power, Distance, and Diasporas in the Dynamics of Interregional Interaction / Gil J. Stein 153 --

10 Multiple Levels in the Aegean Bronze Age World-System / P. Nick Kardulias 179 --

11 World-Systems Theory, Core-Periphery Interactions, and Elite Economic Exchange in Mississippian Societies / Robert J. Jeske 203 --

12 The Inca Empire: Detailing the Complexities of Core/Periphery Interactions / Lawrence A. Kuznar 223 --

13 The Evolutionary Pulse of the World System: Hinterland Incursions and Migrations, 4000 B.C. to A.D. 1500 / George Modelski, William R. Thompson 241 --

14 Abuses and Uses of World Systems Theory in Archaeology / Andre Gunder Frank 275 --

15 Does World-Systems Theory Work?: An Ethnographer's Perspective / Darrell LaLone 297.

Responsibility: edited by P. Nick Kardulias.

I formatted the citation in the text, and using the isbn, found this page in WorldCat. This article has no reference as new as 2020, and shows a map from 20 years ago. Are all the nations still classified in this same way? --Prairieplant (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

A quick, common-sense perspective

This edit is not meant to add to the discussion, and is a mere knee-jerk. I'm just writing this to point out how flabbergasted I am to learn that, according to the theories of the leading economists (who seem to still be stuck in the Cold War period), India or Brazil are 'more developed' and 'wealthier' than Poland or Czech Republic.

Please never change, the 'leading authorities on the subject'. You're gold. PRiCnE (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

On a second thought, I think I could create an argument that would add to the discussion: what exact purpose does a classification like this serve, other than the more-or-less subconscious self-affirmation for the economic researchers based in those supposedly 'more developed' countries? What are the implications of putting several high-income nations in the same mixed bag together with countries that have been struggling with humanitarian crises? What purposeful ramifications with real-world utility come from the assumption that Poland is in some same category as Cuba or Mongolia (with due respect)? --PRiCnE (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)