Talk:First World problem

Reasons for disputing PROD

I have removed the PROD tag as I do not believe it is appropriate. I am unable to see the previous version of the article that failed at AFD. But that was more than 2 years ago. The current article has sources from from respectable publishers in the US as well as Australia and New Zealand which were all published after the AFD. There is a Time article noting it being added to the Oxford Dictionary, although granted just the online one. These sources discuss the usage of the term, not just using the term themselves, so I think it does not fail the WP:NEO criteria. If it is taken to AFD again it may fail again; I don't know. But I do not think it can be called simply a "reddit meme" anymore. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Fallacy of Relative Privation?

I do not believe that the fallacy of relative privation and first world problem is the same thing. One is based upon slang, while the other is based upon speech and debate accreditation. I think separating them again would be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.181.68 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

They are definitely not the same. If anything, the concept of First World Problems can be criticized as suffering from the Fallacy of Relative Privation. While the concept itself obviously exists, there was a recent discussion where it was decided to delete the fallacy page [1] because there were no reliable sources for the term itself. It appears to have been made up almost out of thin air by a handful of non-notable bloggers and wikipedia users, with most sources found later that were in turn based on the wikipedia page. It was suggested that fallacies should not necessarily have dedicated pages for each one. The problem those users utterly failed to address was the fact that thousands of links to the fallacy article are all around the internet, because so many people out there on the internet make fallacious arguments all the time and need to be called on it. And now so many users are going to end up here instead, confused. Unfortunately the fallacy was not in my watchlist so I missed that the discussion was occurring.Legitimus (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

So forgive what may sound like a dumb question, but it's been several weeks already since you both pointed out (and I agree emphatically) that this merge was not appropriate given the circumstances; what would be the next step toward getting the merge reversed? Or might it simply be a matter of adding a section to the First World problem page explaining the FoRP and the distinction between FoRP and FWP? Beeeej (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is there just aren't any good sources that I can find, either for the term or the concept. The parallel article on Rational wiki, "Not as bad as," has no sources at all really, and the cites are really just political in nature. The best I can find are these:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/156-relative-privation

This is a blog, yes, but the author is a licensed social psychologist. That's not great, but it's better than an anonymous blog or one written by someone with no visible credentials.

Even so, this redirect definitely should go elsewhere, such as Ignoratio elenchi. This redirect was literally decided using a coin-flip.Legitimus (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And now this page's section on Relative Privation is literally incoherent. ("It can be an example of a red herring fallacy that of the fallacy of relative privation.") I don't even know how to fix it because I can't imagine what the writer intended. - Beeeej (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed Examples

"Hot water heater taking long time to warm up", "Dishwasher being broken", "Racism/sexism in video games", all seem as valid as the examples listed. Why were they removed? Is someone vandalizing perfectly valid edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Were they sourced? If not, they were removed because of lack of external, noteable sources. Sir Godspeed (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Real first world problems discussion

Although pop culture refer first world are those relatively minor problem in our life. But actually, first world countries are the model or “teachers” for third world and developing countries. First world problem are very critical and big problem to the world. Here I just suggest some important problem or issue for current first world countries.

1. Very high divorce rate. Many first world countries experienced more than 40 percent of couple finally divorce. Single parents families is a very big and important issue.

2. Very low fertility rate. Many first world countries experienced fertility rate less than 2.0 per woman, which makes population growth unsubstainable.

3. High and unafforable housing price. (especially for those first world countries with high density population like Japan or Singapore)

4. Gun violence and gun control (esp. in America)

5. Mental illness and suicide problem.

6. Income and wealth inequalities.

7. Lengthy but low quality education, or huge number of students cannot make use of what they learn in school. Earning low salaries or being involuntary unemployed for many university degree graduates.

8. Cancer, heart disease and stroke.

9. Traffic accidents

10. Pollution

11. School bullying

12. Pseudoscientific concepts and quackery

13. Cyber crime, phishing and Internet security issues

14. Obesity

15. Tension among different religion concepts and science

16. Myopia and Astigmatism

45.64.240.117 (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about trivial problems unique to first work countries. Those topics don't meet the criteria. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

zere point fifth or one point fifth world problem? cnn.com/2023/04/28/world/dutch-father-sperm-donor-children-scandal-intl-hnk/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A549:2E3B:0:F9DD:AF0A:91F:A530 (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Gender language, wokism, while in other countries you simply get shot as a woman saying no or gender language still did not solves a pay gap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.92.181 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Article is missing common criticisms of the concept of first world problems (at least when use to criticize others as apposed to self-deprecatingly)

The concept "First world problems" has been criticized as being a form of the "Fallacy of relative privation", which the articl only briefly mention. I has also been criticized as having Xenophobic implications. See this article for on common issues with the concept: http://rationa.wiki.org/wiki/First_world_problems I realize the above link is not considered a reliable source but it provide a good starting point for complaints about the concept that can be added to the article, provided we can find reliable sources that also state similar concerns. It's not the only place I've heard such complaints stated. We should expand on why it's a form of the "Fallacy of relative privation" and the other concerns raised over the concept when used against other to dismiss their complaints/cocnerns, as apposed to self-deprecatingly. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)