Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-10-19/Contest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


← Back to Contest

Discuss this story

Underdeveloped world? Really? “Underdeveloped” in what?

[edit]

Using this term is derogatory and perpetuates negative stereotypes. It implies a hierarchy where certain countries are inherently superior to others, which is simply not accurate. The fact that the IMF uses these backward, colonial legacy terminologies doesn’t mean we should replicate them. So-called “underdeveloped” countries have rich cultures, strong communities, and innovative solutions to local challenges -- lessons that “developed” countries could learn from if they were humble enough. What happened to using acceptable terms like “Emerging Economies” and “Majority World”? --Masssly (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'm using the term in the same way the author of How Europe Underdeveloped Africa does. i do not appreciate the insinuation that i believe that "certain countries are inherently superior to others" or that i don't believe that exploited countries have rich cultures - that is precisely the opposite of the entire point of this contest which i co-coordinated. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that there was any bad faith, nor an insinuation that certain countries are inherently superior to others; but for now, I've changed the wording to 'emerging economies' and 'Global South'. I understand this is discussed in the body, but basing the use of 'underdeveloped' on a book written in 1970s does not reflect the language that should be used in the 2020s. The change I did is intended to be implemented as a temporary fix, and anyone is free to further change the wording. Svampesky (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"global south" is a perfectly fine alternative for the title - indeed, it's what i initially suggested for the contest's name. however, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa is not merely a book from the 1970s, it's a foundational text still referenced today by scholars of colonialism and read in college classrooms. i used my language deliberately, to convey a specific meaning: that most of the countries that this contest focused on (& indeed the vast majority of articles improved during the contest were relating to Africa or Asia) have been underdeveloped by external colonial and capitalist forces, not through their own fault. however, apparently my meaning is not obvious to everyone. i have slightly tweaked your rewording to re-add "postcolonial" as it is, in my opinion, an essential aspect of the division which forms the basis of this contest. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 16:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Global South" is okay to use here. Just be aware that (as any such broad geographic term) is also not immune to Wikimedians endlessly discussing its connotations and precise definition. In particular, there is a rather hare-brained notion (seen just a few days ago on Foundation-l) that the term "Global South" was imposed by "Westerners" or is somehow super racist and colonialist, whereas in reality it had been promoted to its current wider usage by activists from, well, the Global South who were motivated by pretty much the kind of concerns Masssly outlines above about other terms that refer to development status (or imply a ranking, like Third World).
This Wikimedia affiliate - founded and led by non-white people from the Global South - continues to use it prominently: https://whoseknowledge.org/about-us/
Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'm aware of the discourse and agree with your disagreement. personally i prefer the term "global south" but as i say in the article, there are practical reasons we ended up going with the IMF's obviously problematic "development" rankings - rather ironic that it's the IMF, isn't it? i also disagree with the suggestions for alternative names Masssly has made - "emerging" is, in my opinion, euphemistic and inaccurate, and "majority world" is incredibly vague. anyways, i'm fine with the changes that have been made and acknowledge that i could have used clearer terminology, but i absolutely stand by my above statements and reasoning. in the same vein, i would have a lot more patience for this discussion if it didn't start out with the insinuations made in the initial comment. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the ridiculous side, we might want to change the image I suggested for the landing (or table of contents) page. It is a painting of an old sailing ship grounded or iced in in Greenland, with the title including "global south" superimposed. Or just leave it - it's bound to catch the eye of the most discerning readers. It should be a warning to inexperienced Signposters not to go making major edits outside of the usual copyediting times. This should have been discussed before the deadline so that the article submitters could help choose the proper title, and I think the title of the contest would pretty well have to suffice here - we can't change that title.

The choice of name for the general category has long been awkward. Emerging economies, popular in the 1990s was awkward even then. How did anyone know which countries economies would actually emerge? And what to with those countries that obviously weren't emerging? Meanwhile China and India have emerged by many measures but were still included in this contest.

1st, 2nd, and 3rd worlds was more of a political grouping.

Under-developed made me think, in a climate change frame of mind, that the other group was "over-developed", i.e burning too much fossil fuels. Maybe "lesser developed" is a middle of the superhighway term. In any case, we shouldn't be making any major changes now. Check with the editor-in-chief if you're tempted. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i like the image. i think it's a bit subtly funny, and a nod towards one of the FAs (Qalaherriaq) which was submitted for the contest. i also agree that it should've been discussed before publication, but so it goes.
regarding the rest of your comment, i agree. i think one of the benefits of the term "underdeveloped" is that it prompts questions: underdeveloped why, by whom, and compared to what? climate change is a good point of comparison here. i think we lose that with euphemistic terms like "emerging" which are very inaccurate to the material realities of many of the countries they're applied to—i'd hardly call the economies of e.g. Lebanon, Palestine, Myanmar, DR Congo, Sudan, or Niger "emerging". ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-10-19/Contest&oldid=1252510261"