Talk:Third-worldism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeydog12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

criticism

Criticism? I would start off by saying that third-worldism tends to involve what Trosky called "cross-class collaboration"; support for the ruling elites in "oppressed" countries even when they in turn are very oppressive of the working class and of working class interests.

Anyone want to take it further? I don't really know how I'd put that on the page itsself without weasel words or violating NPOV and also I don't have the resources for a lengthy flame war right now. -- 0:04, 11 May 2009 82.45.15.186

For many people in the United States, third-worldism has been most notable for a kind of phoney faux pseudo-"neutrality" which in fact seemed to favor the Soviet bloc (as seen in Cuba's membership in the "non-aligned movement"[sic]) -- as well as an unceasing flow of vehement vitriolic vituperation directed at Israel, all too frequently slipping over into outright bigoted "throw the Jews into the sea" rhetoric. Third-worldism had a near-"hegemonic" domination over a number of United Nations bodies and affiliated specialized organizations during the second half of the 1970's and during the 1980's, and doesn't appear to have too many solid accomplishments to show for it. Many perceived that this was really a mutual solidarity of petty dictatorships and tin-pot tyrants directed against democracies... AnonMoos (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding A New Page to the "See Also"

Is it wrong to add a non-Wikipedia page/URL to a "see also" section? I have a Wall Street Journal Page that might put the Third Worldism concept into people's heads in a more understandable and modern way. It also is a lengthy piece that expands the idea and brings different opinions into the mix. I will leave the URL below.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703818204576206391411710346

Thank You! Jeydog12 (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It should be in an "external links" section, with author and title indicated. AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

North South Division

the article says "The political thinkers and leaders of Third-Worldism argued that the North-South divisions and conflicts were of primary political importance compared to the East-West opposition of the Cold War period" What exactly are the north-south divisions they are referring to. This is unclear 2601:446:300:9D20:3005:3564:2034:DF09 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC) ben

See article Global South... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Third-Worldism → Third-worldism – Sources don't usually cap this. Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Jenks24 (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

In the unhypenated expression "Third World", the "W" is usually capitalized, but that doesn't mean that the capitalization should be carried over into the hyphenated form.... AnonMoos (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose but unhyphenated The hyphenated term is not consistently capped (see here) but the unhyphenated version is consistently capped (see here) and is much more common (see here).Capitalisation would serve much the same purpose as hyphenation, in that it tells the reader that it is a unit phrase. WP:AT would tell us to avoid hyphenation if not necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Interesting observation. But the hyphen seems to me to be important with respect the the "ism", which isn't about Worldism, but is an ism about Third World. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Cinderella157 -- "Third Worldism" would be much less clear in meaning to many people than "Third-worldism" (it might bring to mind Jack Kirby's Fourth World or Mesoamerican mythology). And I'm not sure that the second word in "Third Worldism" would be entitled to a capital letter for the same reason that the second word in "Third World" gets a capital letter... AnonMoos (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Third Worldism to be WP:CONSISTENT with Maoism–Third Worldism and with other proper-name derivatives without hyphens stuck into them. If "Third World" in this kind of context is being treated as a proper name (and this seems to be the case), then it would remain so if hyphenated. But being a proper name, it should not be hyphenated to begin with, for the same reason we don't inject a hyphen into Upper Canadian (derived adjective or noun by suffix) or Irish Republicanism (derived noun by suffix) or Ulster Unionist (derived adjective or noun, by truncation of "Party", at least when referring to that party and not to the broader kind of lowercase Ulster unionism). Per MOS:HYPHEN, a unitary proper name is not hyphenated when turned into an adjective or other form of modification. And cf. Maoism–Third Worldism; I don't think there'd be much appetite for moving that to Maoism–Third-Worldism, though that should exist as a redirect. Nor for going around writing "Upper-Canadian", "Ulster-Unionist", "Irish-Republican", etc. I'm not swayed by the "this isn't about something called 'worldism', of the 'third kind'" sort of argument. The very fact of the capitalization tells us that this a proper name, and we don't inject hyphenation into the middle of proper names, so it is not confusing, any more than "Upper Canadian" and "Irish Republicanism" and "Ulster Unionionism" are confusing. [However, I notice now that Irish Republicanism is a redir to Irish republicanism; a strong argument can be made to move the latter to "Irish Republicanism" since it's about the Irish Republic, a unitary proper name. Irish [r|R]epublicanism isn't republicanism in the usual sense, of an aim to establish or maintain a republic; that republic already exists and is doing fine. The Irish variety is entirely about ending British rule over any part of the island of Ireland and extending the Irish Republic, proper name, to cover all of it. It's a special case.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish -- An Upper Canadian is still a Canadian, and Irish Republicanism is a form of Republicanism etc, but Third-worldism is not a form of Worldism, so I really don't see how those examples are relevant at all. And "Maoism-Third Worldism" is a kind of awkard phrasal dvandva which strains customary English orthographic practices (there's simply no good answer as to how it should be punctuated/spaced/joined in terms of accepted English spelling principles), so I don't think it should be used as a pattern or model for any other form... AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Being in "Third Worldism" form doesn't automatically make it mean "Worldism of the third kind", but signifies something different. I already addressed this. The fact that it's "Third Worldism" not "third Worldism" already signals that it is a unitary proper name that happens to be two words. If you want other examples, see Seventh-day Adventism, which is not "Adventism that happens on the seventh day"; it's a unitary term referring to Saturday and the Second Coming, and it is not written "Seventh-day-adventism". The institution is the Seventh-day Adventist Church, not the "Seventh-day-adventist Church". Next, see Third International, etc. (all the communist stuff); adjectival forms like "Third Internationalist" are very well-attested in source material (and on WP, e.g. at Girolamo Li Causi: "he helped organise the Third Internationalist faction of the PSI"), and are not written "Third-internationalist", which just seems to be a made-up style by a Wikipedian confused by multi-part proper names. "Third-Internationalit" (capital I) turns up in one source I could find, but is not a style WP uses; the same writer would probably have done "New-Zealander" and "Northern-Irish", and we just don't do that. Next, users of Second Life (sometimes misspelled SecondLife, probably to mimic an old logo) typically call themselves Second Lifers or sometimes SecondLifers, but not "Second-lifers"; I can't find that spelling anywhere except in a few forum posts riddled with other spelling issues. How many examples do you need? What I need is even one example of a proper name of the form [Ordinal] [Noun] that is, consistently across reliable sources, rendered in modifier form as [Ordinal]-[noun][suffix] with lower-casing of the base noun and injection of a hyphen in place of the space. I do not believe this exists.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• P.S. I SUPPORT Dicklyon's proposed move above (I didn't formally state this). AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support original proposal. Not consistently capped, so shouldn't be here.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.