Talk:First World privilege

Old stuff

I created the page with only the basic definition of the term, which btw is used in literature- hence not a neologism. I've now put some references to back up some of the points made. I hope this should be satisfactory.

OK, the term appears notable, although the points made so far seem to be biased towards certain viewpoints. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. It needs expanding, but it's pretty dead on.Darqcyde (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

So pseudosocialscience has reached wikipedia too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.73.85 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This is BS terminology, you can't claim that a country is privileged because it pulled itself out of the ashes and became an economic power on the backs of the labor of those who are in it. I'm gonna link the definition of privilege, and you can see that nowhere does it say "those who work hard are privileged because other countries can't do the same" Don't spread ignorant beliefs as factual, Wikipedia should have neutrality in all situations, not to point fingers and claim that one society is above others on the merit of work, labor, and industrialism. ESPECIALLY when countries who are considered first world are the powerhouses who produce more culturally and economically. (there are a few exceptions, but those are second world) Also isn't it the goal of every country and the United Nations to bring all of the world up to some form of industrialization and prevent communism? Anyway, this is biased as hell. It also implies that if you live in a first world that you are better off than those in a second or third world Lumonaco The Magnificent (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the article is somewhat biased. I've edited it make it clear that these are views, rather than facts. The last sentence was unsupported by any reference, so I removed it.82.27.201.132 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

References

I'm assuming this was posted around the time Template:POV check was added. The assumptions above are so wrong they aren't worth debating, so I have removed the template. If anyone wants to restore the template, they should make a more compelling case than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Grayfell (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

First world Vs. developed world

First world is a cold war term, and doesn't necessarily reflect economic success, this entire article seems to be made up of weasel words like these as if it were written by a click-bait media outlet rather than a neutral Wikipedia article, I suggest not only a name change, but a tone change as well. --LyThienDao1984 (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

IP nominated article for deletion

This article is unsubstantiated conjecture (just look at the sources). I nominate for its deletion. 184.176.77.180 (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not how you nominate an article, see WP:AFD, but you're going to have to put more effort into your argument than that. What, exactly, is the problem with the sources? Grayfell (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this subject 'notable' enough for Wikipedia?

I doubt whether this article meets WP:N. My arguments:

• Although there are definitely advantages to living in the First World, there are thousands of other advantages one could think of. Should we make a page for every word followed by the word privilege? Like Non-Baldhead privilege? Or Pretty Face Privilege? Or Tall privilege?
• When doing a "first+world+privilege" Google search only 7000 results are returned, and the results do not seem very convincing

I welcome discussion. Alternatively, I suppose we consider to put this article up for deletion.

Amin (Talk) 19:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

Looked at the talk page for this article and there are several proponents for its deletion -- merits a debate. --Letsrestoresanity (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of First World privilege for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First World privilege is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First World privilege until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsrestoresanity (talk • contribs) 05:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion as keep. If you disagree with it, feel free to let me know on my talk page (or just take it straight to deletion review, I honestly don't care). JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Propose merge

• Proposing that First World problem, a short article about a hashtag, could more efficiently be lodged here, where it will enhance this somewhat thin article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  I like this but 'problem' is better, but is still to ambiguous. Kingofallclergy (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge: I agree. The topics seem to be closely related enough. - Meticulo (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- the source article is about a pop culture phenomenon, while First World privilege is an academic topic. I suggest keeping them separate. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability

Is this page notable enough to be on wikipedia? There is no reason that is visible to me for the existence of this page. Thanks, Facements (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Facements

Strike the word 'privilege'.

The word 'privilege' does not translate well. I vote to change that word to luxuries. My opinion; is to call it what is. Let us not try to bend this subject [ Classism ] into other unrelated topics or ideologiesKingofallclergy (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)