Talk:Developed country/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Developed country. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
CIA's list
CIA's list of "developed countries" is the authoritative "THE list of developed countries." Now, some people might not like the list, but the list is correct, and is THE list. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should not prevent people from accessing this information, but rather provide this information. Whether to agree with the list or not depends on the reader. But the list has to be there since it is THE list. Excluding that list is like writing a page about US states, but not including the names of the states since some people "believe" (yes, "believe") that one or more of the states should not be in the list. If Wikipedia wants to keep its credibility, the list should be put back. ~~# Heyyaaa (I don't know how to sign my name)
- There is a strong CONSENSUS that the CIA's list is invalid because it is totally outdated - including such countries as South Africa and Turkey which are NOT recognized as a developed country in any form by ANY international organization but the CIA, which is strictly controlled by the United States and is therefore is the LEAST reliable source out of the IMF, World Bank and OECD. Milkmooney (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The section "Comprehensive list of developed countries" is original research
The official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research states that "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." If this list was merely created by some nobody wikipedian from the lists of World Bank, IMF and CIA (none of which is properly cited in the section btw) and is not supported by any credible authority as a whole, then it is an original research material that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It should be replaced by the original 3 lists with proper citation. --Saintjust 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, see my comment in the last section. Signaturebrendel 22:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly agree too, and the list has been removed as per consensus. Milkmooney (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Comprehensive list is OR
Wikipedia editors cannot put toghther a comphrensive list. All we can do is list the countries certain organizations list a "high income" or advanced. It is simply not up to us to decide whether a country is developed or not - especially since there isn't a concerete definition. Is Macao developed? We can't answer that question with a yes or no. What we can do is identify it as country that has been classified as high income by the World Bank. Whether or not that makes Macao a developed country is up to the reader to decide. The list is OR becuase it is an attempt to decide which country is and isn't developed -something we simply can't decide on WP. I have started replacing the list with seperate lists that reflect the World Bank and IMF classification - I'll add one for the CIA later. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree that the previous list was OR, since it didn't create a new definition of "developed country", but simply listed those countries which were classified as developed by all of the CIA, the IMF and the World Bank. I wouldn't have called that a "comprehensive" list, since it fact was possibly the narrowest list of developed countries. However, I believe it was very convenient, and since all entries were sourced as developed, did not constitute original research. I think the new structure, of having three parallel lists, is too confusing, particularly due to the overlap. I would suggest going back to the previous list, but also making a note about the differing definitions and mentioning countries which are only included in one or two of the lists. To put it in terms of the Macao dispute: we would list Macao as developed if the IMF and WB consider it such. Since the IMF doesn't consider it as an advanced economy, Macao should be listed in "other cases". Ronline ✉ 11:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are also mistakes in the Image:High Income country.png map. The Czech Republic is not coloured in, and Estonia and Latvia is represented as high-income (which is the case only for Estonia). I would correct the map, but I don't know how to revert back the borders of the Baltic states and then colour in Estonia only. I will attempt to make a new map showing all four divisions (high income, upper-middle, lower-middle and low) on the same map, as I think this would be more widely-applicable. Ronline ✉ 11:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I have made a new map, Image:World Bank income groups.png. The colour scheme isn't great, but it includes all the different categories, including the updated list for high-income economies. Ronline ✉ 12:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I oppose returning to the old list vehemently. There is not coherent definition of a developed country, hence there cannot be just one list. All there is are different institutions, using different criteria, creating different lists. Is Turkey a developed country? Well it isn't an advanced economy according to the IMF but it is a developed country on the CIA list. Moving a country like Turkey to an "Other cases" list is complete OR - it suggest that there is some twilight cateogry - there isn't. One of sources does list Turkey, the other doesn't. We need to do the same. Mention it on one list but no the other. We need to stick to our sources! If our sources consist of two different lists composed by different agencies that employ different criteria, than our article will consist of two different lists as well. As it states in the OR policy: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C.
- (ie. CIA + IMF - what isn't mentioned in both = developed country = OR)
- Your new map looks great, I used it to replace the previous map I stiched to together late at night. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I oppose returning to the old list vehemently. There is not coherent definition of a developed country, hence there cannot be just one list. All there is are different institutions, using different criteria, creating different lists. Is Turkey a developed country? Well it isn't an advanced economy according to the IMF but it is a developed country on the CIA list. Moving a country like Turkey to an "Other cases" list is complete OR - it suggest that there is some twilight cateogry - there isn't. One of sources does list Turkey, the other doesn't. We need to do the same. Mention it on one list but no the other. We need to stick to our sources! If our sources consist of two different lists composed by different agencies that employ different criteria, than our article will consist of two different lists as well. As it states in the OR policy: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C.
- Yeah, I guess you're right with the original research part. I was just thinking that we should avoid the article with all these different and overlapping definitions, and then creating lots of similar articles (for example, First World overlaps with developed country which overlaps with high income countries) which serve to confuse the reader. Although Wikipedia needs to be NPOV and must not engage in original research, I think it must at the same time also provide some synthesis or summary of information, otherwise it risks becoming little more than a search engine. We need to provide the links between and explanation of the sources in order to form a cohesive article.
- I think if we're going to have the three separate lists, we should explain why they are different - i.e. the criteria used by each organisation. Though I must say that the criteria are fairly arbitrary (and this should be made clear too). The CIA, for example, does not explain why it chose certain countries for its list - the inclusion of Turkey and South Africa, and the exclusion of South Korea and Slovenia, would suggest that the CIA's definition of developed countries is simply the Cold War definition of First World. The IMF's "advanced economy" status is also not adequately explained by the organisation itself (I don't think). I agree with the fact that you've moved the high income countries to a separate article since the two definitions are not exactly the same - a country can be high-income but not developed. I think that the IMF list should be moved first, before the CIA list. I really think that the CIA list is not the best source in this regard, not only because it fails to explain its criteria, but because its definition conflicts itself. It says that the definition "includes the market-oriented economies of the mainly democratic nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)". Why would South Korea not be included in this definition? Why is Turkey included but Mexico is excluded? Both are OECD members at comparable development levels (in fact, Mexico has a higher GDP per capita and higher HDI than Turkey), neither were part of the Second World. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 14:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see that we agree on the OR issue. Sometimes having seperate lists is the only non-OR option - especially when dealing w/ a vaguely defined concept such as this. I agree, we should explain how the IMF and CIA created their lists and what criteria they used. Unfortuntaly I haven't found that any detailed info yet... I hope I will soon - until I do, just include whatever you've found 'til now.
- As for moving the lists we need to excercise caution. It is not up to us to judge the lists - they both come from creidble sources. Personally I think the IMF has the "best" list - but that just my opinion. I moved the CIA list first becuase C comes before I in the alphabet. That said, I suppose we could move the IMF list up w/o risking any sort of POV statement. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the previous list was much much better. Multiple lists cause a great deal of confusion, not to say that the CIA list is flawed. How is Turkey considered a developed country? With a per capita income of just $9,000, HDI no 92 in the world, high infant mortality, poverty etc etc there are many many other countries, including AFRICAN ones that are way better than Turkey. It just doesnt make sense. I think we should produce one single list that takes into account what the IMF and World Bank say, regarding advanced economies and high-income economies and of course HDI that should be over 0,9. Otherwise if we produce a list that has, for instance, Turkey as a developed country, why not add Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Tunisia, etc etc..Thanx!Aero1980 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the topic is confusing and the two lists are rather easy to navigate. We need to reflect our sources or risk OR. Turkey is a developed country according to the CIA -that's all that matters, whether we agree or disagree. "why not add Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Tunisia, etc etc.." - becuase they or not on any given list. If Tunisia was on a list from the CIA or IMF it would listed too. It is not up too us to classify countries and it is not up to us to decide whether or not a list is flawed and its entries should be omitted. If the list comes from the CIA or IMF - reputable sources - it need to be reflected accurately in the article. Furthermore, "developed country" and "advaned economy" are two different concepts using different criteria set by different instutitions - you cannot merge the two. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I understand what you say but I think one of the things a good Encyclopedia must do is to filter its sources and present the most credible and reasonable data. Thus I strongly believe that the CIA list is flawed (the reasons for that might be many) by adding as developed countries, two countries that clearly are not: Turkey and South Africa. By presenting them as developed we reduce Wikipedia's credibility since all other organizations that in fact produce such data (used by CIA itself) dont consider the above coountries as developed. Now, there is a strong correlation between a developed country and an advanced economy. Usually a strong economy, with a high GDP/capita will have a high HDI and thus considered developed. The point is that an advanced economy that also has a high HDI, 0,9 or more will defenately be a developed country. Those countries are all Western European countries, USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and more, but defenately not Turkey nor South Africa. Those two countries are too poor with too low HDI's that even if CIA considers them developed, we, as Wikipedians should look the other facts and present a reasonable list.Aero1980 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we do need to filter sources - but the CIA passes all criteria. I myself disagree with the CIA list - South Africa, where 33% of the population live in "informal housing" and 80% haven't completed a secondary education isn't a developed country IMHO. But me disagreeing with the CIA list is irrelevant in this case. The CIA is a credible source as is the list it has developed. A good encyclopedia must all display the data given by its sources in the most accurate manner possible w/o having the editor's opinions influence the article's content. We cannot censor our sources. Fact is, there are two different lists, by two different institutions - we need to present both of them w/ equal merit. Doing so will no hurt our credibility - it may hurt that of the CIA but not ours - we did not devise the list but are simply presenting the reasearch of a reputable organization. We need to leave it up to the reader to judge the lists - it is the only thing we can do as Wikipedia editors. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- The CIA is EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE - you CANNOT include a list that has NEVER been updated since it was published. The CIA simply uses data off from the IMF - now which is more RELIABLE? Milkmooney (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
South Korea is not a developed country
I checked up with important lists one of which is from the CIA and found that South Korea (SK) is an advanced economy but not a developed country. Find the list at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html.
It is very inappropriate to list SK as a developed country. The classification 'advanced economies' clearly mentions that it includes developing countries in Asia and Europe.
Svr014 (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)NICSupporter
- we already talked about this before. cia developed country list is outdated. even if it is uptodate, IMF classifies countries to 2 categories. advanced eonomy and delveoping economy. south korea is classified as advanced economy. i think IMF is more reliable source. CIA stands for central intelligence of Agency of 'USA', IMF= 'International' Monetary Fund. which one do u think is more reliable?? plus can u tell me the difference between advanced economy and developed country????Hawkchoi (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The term advanced economy is used differently than the term developed country by some arms of the US and other Western governments. There are 28 advanced economies of which South Korea and Singapore are part of. But there are 34 developed countries (DCs) of which only the G7 countries and 27 other countries are part of. Look at the source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html for more information...Svr014 (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.
- i know that cia has list of developed countries. i told u it is outdated(made in 1994 has never been updated). i can give u list of developed countries in 14th century, which includes mongolia, aztec and maya etc.... u still didn't answer my question. what is the difference between developed country and advanced economy?? what is the meaning of developed country? i think advanced economy=developed country. people used the term developed country past more often but now i think advanced economy is used more frequently.121.133.75.182 (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- plus, i told u it is only institution of USA. why do u give so much credit to CIA? it is not even economic institution. it is Cectral Agency of Instituion(USA). i already told u this. IMF is more reliable than CIA in economy. CIA is not an international economic institution so doesn't matter what they say about economy. why don't u focus on more about international economic institutions rather than some specific country's political institutions???121.133.75.182 (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- There have been ongoing debates about this for a LONG time and the clear CONSENSUS is to leave out the CIA DC list and exclude the WB IRBC list. Please do not make further edits by ignoring this consensus. Milkmooney (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
YES,South Korea is not a developed country. The World Fact Book IS correct BOOK.hey,korean!PLEASE DONT conceal the fact.--Kesuida (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE STOP KOREAN POV.--Kesuida (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- well this japanese don't seem to understand english... read what i have said... i explained why cia developed country list cannot be used. cia is not international nor economic organization. why do u think cia adopted IMF's advanced economy list? did u even know that they adopted the list? since when did CIA get more credit than IMF in economic matters?? hmm? if CIA's list is right singapore is not developed country but u know what?? singapore has higher GDP per capita than ur beloved nation. weird ha?? do i have to translate this in to japanese??? キーキーキーキーキーキーキーキーキーキーキーキーキーキーキーキーキーキー understood???Hawkchoi (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- answer the question before u open ur mouth.what is the difference between developed country and Advanced economy??? u seem to ignore all the other lists and only emphasize cia's list why is that? never mind~ just explain why south africa and turkey is developed country and explain why singapore and south korea isn't. don't just open ur mouth and speak thoughtlessly, think and make logical statementHawkchoi (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- ok Kesuida. let's say world fact book is correct(even though it is not). what about IMF's advanced economy list? is this wrong??121.133.75.182 (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
A correction to the article...
Not all developing countries are classified as failed states. There are three classes of countries: 1) Developed Countries, 2) Developing Countries, and 3) Undeveloped Countries. The third catagory is called Failed States. There are leading emerging developing countries like China, India, Brazil, South Africa who are part of the G-20 (major economies) and G8+5 (Industrialized countries and leading emerging economies). Svr014 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.
The link worked well now...Good job...Svr014 (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.
CIA is not international nor economic organization
- i don't understand.... why do people value cia's developed country list so much??
first of all CIA is not international nor economic organization, it is american political organization. so why put so much emphasis?? IMF, world bank, UN, OECD they are all international organization. if u guys want to put emphasis on cia, then let's put the same emphasis to other organizations of certain countires. let's insert mossad's developed country list(if they have one) will u people put same emphasis on Mossad's developed country list as u did to CIA's??? what is the difference between CIA and Mossad? second, cia's developed country list is outdated.never been updated since it is released. why is south africa and turkey developed and singapore and south korea isn't?? explain this to me becuase i don't understand. why don't u people get developed country list in 4th century and 11the century and place them in this article?? i can tell u some... roman empire, persia, tartars..... thirdly, 'some people' seem to ignore all the other datas and only emphasize CIA's list. why is that?? i think becuase it is the only list where South Korea is not classified as developed country. come on~~ grow upHawkchoi (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- if cia is that important why don't we consider this list? http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/_non_flash/ same american organization but uptodate, this list only classifies 22 countries as devleoped. if cia deserves our attention then this list deserves it too. so poeple try to be objective Hawkchoi (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
South Korea is a developed country?? FUNNY. This article[1] is KOREAN POV. --Kesuida (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- are u willfully ignorant or stupid?? do u know how to debate?Hawkchoi (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
do not change the article without having a debate
well this is common sense to every one but it seems certain people don't have common sense. do not edit without having a debate. ask for debate and back ur claims up with datas. for example Keisuda just writes down 1 line,1 line of his personal opinion. well ur personal opinion means nothing, if u want to persuade someone prove that ur opinion is correct. if u can't debate properly just don't open ur mouthHawkchoi (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I can see clear attempt to rule out South Korea from the article
it is funny really. look what certain people are doing to the article. these people just pick on south korea. look at the quality of life article. the number changed from 30 countries to 29countries. isn't 30 more natural than 29??. plus we have already talked about all these IBRD and CIA stuff. so why do u people suddenly bring it up???? very strange. what were u guys doing when we were having discussion about these matters????? CIA developed country list don't include hongkong singapore south korea taiwan. but these people are only concered in kicking south korea out, no need to mention most of them are japanese. do u people don't know how to debate? or just avoiding it because u know that u can't win??04:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi (talk • contribs)
- look at the summary table. quality of life at or above 6.917. 6.917? why not 6.0 or 7.0? why 6.917??? i will tell u why becuase south korea got 6.877 and UK got 6.917. these people want to put UK in the list but rule out south korea from the list. that is why they came up with 6.917. at least have decency to change the number to 7.0 or 6.0. maybe u guys want to change the HDI in summary table too. let me guess... HDI at or above 0.929 ???? since south korea got 0.928Hawkchoi (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- — Hawkchoi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC).
Top-- is more strange standard than set a standard index point. and I don't think CIA DC list is not useful. DC is different from DC list, that featuring other factors not only in economical factors. 61.99.38.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC).
It is simply because South Korea is not a developed country. It seems to me that some editors have been trying to cherry picking edits for Korea. FTSE does not classified Korea as a developed country. [2][3] NYT regards Korea as a developing country. [4] Korea is not even a developed market. [5]. Look at these South Korean newspaper articles. Even Koreans themselves do not say 'Korea is a developed country'. [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Oda Mari (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- FTSE does not classified Korea as a developed country? Oh... Sorry about that. South Korea will be classified by FTSE as a developed in the September 2009 indices. :)[10]
- and many articles are written with subjective opinion. your cherry picking articles are not objective data.
- In the fast, South Korea was a developing country, but not now.
- HDI? UN High Human Development Index[11]
- Economy? High-Income OECD[12], Advanced Economy list by IMF&CIA, Developed Market by FSTE(will be classified)
- Politic? Full Democracy by The Economist[13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.42.132.117 (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- That was last year's record. Today they classifies South Korea as an advanced emerging country. See here. I'd like to know your opinion on the NYT and Korean newspaper articles? Why did you ignore them? Please let me know. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I said that 'South Korea will be classified by FTSE as a developed in the September 2009 indices.' It was not only last year's record. You don't know what it mean? After 3 month, South Korea will be classfied developed country.here. News article is no basis in objective data and standard. By the way, Why did you ignore them?(HDI, HI OECD, AE, etc...) If You can't recognize them data as Developed basis, Why don't you remove Wikipedia Developed Country Page's all data? But you edited page only add CIA's DCs, IBRD and Change Qol ≥6.917(Funny). Thank you.122.42.132.117 (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- — 122.42.132.117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC).
- Sorry, but it's not September yet. Who knows what will happen till then? Remember encyclopedia is the most conservative media. Furthermore, FTSE is just one of those organizations used in Summary section. That is why I think it's cherry picking edits for Korea. Oda Mari (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Who cares what you think? --Tnaniua (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- In other words, every editor should be neutral on any articles. That is not my personal point of view. It's one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Oda Mari (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Who cares what you think? --Tnaniua (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it's not September yet. Who knows what will happen till then? Remember encyclopedia is the most conservative media. Furthermore, FTSE is just one of those organizations used in Summary section. That is why I think it's cherry picking edits for Korea. Oda Mari (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I say I don't post my opinion or comment above, but I'd like to offer my own thought too. CIA must have their conditions to determine whether a country is developed or not. IMHO, some of them might be like these.The cultural level and the moral standard of the people. Freedom of speech, expression, the press and conscience. Racial and sexual equality of the people. Equality of education and opportunity. Being a constitutional government. Oda Mari (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC) wow --Tnaniua (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where anyone has provided a reliable source which criticizes the report. It's all Wikipedia editors, who have no standing as reliable sources, using loaded terms such as "so-called". As I told Tnaniua, all he has to do is to find a reliable source, and all of this would be settled. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[[14]]--Kingj123 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Where does it say in that link that the report is wrong? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
what report is wrong?--Kingj123 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
oh.. I see , my apologies... CIA list.
- COUNTRY DESCRIPTION: The Republic of Korea (South Korea or ROK) is a highly developed, stable, democratic republic with powers shared between the president and the legislature. It has a modern economy, and tourist facilities are widely available.
- COUNTRY DESCRIPTION: Japan is a stable, highly developed parliamentary democracy with a modern economy. Tourist facilities are widely available.
- by U.S. Department of State. [15][16] Dare002 (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE
Here is the updated list for developed and devveloping countries Cheers everyone! [[17]] --Kingj123 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting... this time South Korea is not listed in either of the list.
- And even more funny, did you notice that South Africa is on both developing AND developed countries list?
God knows what the CIA is up to. Pds0101 (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Issues (QoL)
According to Ode Mari user, South Korea is cut off from QoL list "simply because South Korea is not a developed country" for him? This is a false logic: the QoL list justifies whether the countries are developed, not the other way around.
For instance, I personally don't think that UK is developed enough, however, that does give me the right to shorten up the list so that UK is removed.
I also find the cut off mark very odd. 6.917?? What is so significant about this value?--Kingj123 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think so. 6.917 is very strange value. Top 20 or Top 30, above 7.0 or 6.5 or 6.0 are more suitability. Dare002 (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Issues with CIA source
The danger of sourcing government agency websites is that the specific nation's interests may distort the information provided. As we all know, US government sources are fairly "reliable" for the most part, however CIA is not an appropriate source when we are dealing with developed countries. Neutral and reliable sources would be IMF or World Bank which are organizations recognized by the international community; these sources provide a neutral overview of the nations around the world, and treat each country on an equal scale. No country has an authority to define which country is developed or not, it is an issue the international community has to solve. --Kingj123 (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- To say that the IMF or the World Bank is more reliable than the CIA is laughable. I won't defend the CIA, but they're a government agency that's tasked with intelligence gathering. Any data that's skewed to favor US interests is less valuable than accurate data. The IMF and WB are bureaucratic monstrosities that do much more harm than good. They have a vested interest in painting a rosy picture of countries they've "helped." "No country has an authority to define which country is developed or not?" You can't be serious. What type of authority are we talking about here? And how is it that supranational organizations have this authority but nations don't. And how is it that you have the authority to make that determination? --AntigrandiosËTalk 21:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Issues with HI Lending Eligibility
1. "High income" and "loan eligibility" are separate concepts.
2. In addition,I do not see "the source stating" the fact that the lending eligibility does not help classifing the developed or developing countries within the high income category. A plausible and reliable explanation from the World Bank or other well known organization is needed.
3. With North Korea as an example, there are other factors that affects the eligibility for loans, not just the developness of the country. I am open to counterclaims as stated in the source.--Kingj123 (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that. "High income" and "loan eligibility" are separate concepts. - 122.42.132.117 (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Page protected
Per the discussion on ANI, I have protected this page for 1 week. Please propose any changes on this talk page and come to an agreement. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is no link to that discussion and the block is now over a month.--Sum (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Template deletion
{{editprotected}} The template {{lists of countries}} in undergoing deletion. Please replace it (at the bottom of the article) by the following relevant successor templates:
--Cybercobra (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Done JPG-GR (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Flawed protection
The protection has been imposed for over a month, editing ability must be restored.--Sum (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Estonia, Hungary, Romania and Turkey
All these four countries should be in IMF advanced economy list or some of the other lists, isn't it? Jimm36 (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Vector migration
{{editprotected}}
Change [[:Image:UN Human Development Report 2007 (2).png|thumb|right|320px|World map showing the Human Development Index as presented by the United Nations in 2007.]] to [[:File:UN Human Development Report 2008.svg|thumb|right|320px|World map showing the Human Development Index as presented by the United Nations in 2008.]]
This will change the old map, based on HDI data from 2007, with the latest 2008 map (File:UN Human Development Report 2008.svg).
Thanks, cflm (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- See no problem with this, so, Done. And by the way, an easier way of showing a link to an file without transcluding it is to add a colon at the beginning of the link, like this [[:File:Example.jpg]], or to show the code for it, you can use nowiki tags, like this: <nowiki>[[File:Example.jpg]]</nowiki>--Jac16888Talk 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Change
{{editprotected}}
Change
|-
| align="left" | 
San Marino || bgcolor="#FFA07A" | NO || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || 2
to
|-
| align="left" | San Marino || bgcolor="#FFA07A" | NO || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || 3. --211.179.112.25 (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
- Translation (after checking myself): set "IMF AE" for San Marino to "Yes" per the "IMF advanced economies list" section, which includes a San Marino-specific ref. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Change 2
{{editprotected}}
Change country name (Bahamas, The → The Bahamas) and Change references (<ref>[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/groups.htm World Economic Outlook], [[International Monetary Fund]], October 2008, second paragraph, line 9-10.</ref> → <ref>[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/weodata/groups.htm World Economic Outlook], [[International Monetary Fund]], April 2009, second paragraph, line 9-10.</ref>). And Change name (East Asian Tiger → Four Asian Tigers) and delete references. And set "HDI≥0.9" for The Bahamas to "NO" per the "Human Development Index" section. Thank you. --211.179.112.25 (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Change 3
{{editprotected}}
This list
to change this.
and This list
| Legend | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| HIE OECD | High-income OECD members | CIA AE | CIA's The World Factbook, Advanced economies |
| IMF AE | International Monetary Fund, Advanced economies | WB HIE | World Bank, High-income economies[1] |
| HDI≥0.9 | Human Development Index at or above 0.9[2] | QoL Top 30 | Quality-of-life index Top 30 countries |
| Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Australia |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Austria |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Belgium |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Canada |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Denmark |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Finland |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 France |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Germany |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Greece |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Iceland |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Ireland |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Italy |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Japan |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Luxembourg |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Netherlands |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 New Zealand |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Norway |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Portugal |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 South Korea |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Spain |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Sweden |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Switzerland |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 United Kingdom |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 United States |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
 Hong Kong |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
 Singapore |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
 Taiwan |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
 Cyprus |
NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | 4 |
 Israel |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | 4 |
 Slovenia |
NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | 4 |
 Czech Republic |
YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | 3 |
 Malta |
NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | YES | 3 |
 Monaco |
NO | YES | — | YES | YES | NO | 3 |
| San Marino |
NO | YES | YES | YES | — | — | 3 |
 Slovakia |
YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | 3 |
 Andorra |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
 Bahrain |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
 Bermuda |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | — | 2 |
 Brunei |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
 Faroe Islands |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
 Greenland |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
 Hungary |
YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 2 |
 Kuwait |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
 Liechtenstein |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
 Macau |
NO | NO | — | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
 United Arab Emirates |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
 Antigua and Barbuda |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
 Aruba |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
 The Bahamas |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
 Barbados |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
 Cayman Islands |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
 Croatia |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
  Channel Islands |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
 Estonia |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
 Equatorial Guinea |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
 French Polynesia |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
 Guam |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
 Holy See |
NO | YES | — | — | — | — | 1 |
 Isle of Man |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
 Netherlands Antilles |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
 New Caledonia |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
 Northern Mariana Islands |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
 Oman |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
 Qatar |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
 Saudi Arabia |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
 Trinidad and Tobago |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
 U.S. Virgin Islands |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
to change this.
| Legend | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| HIE OECD | High-income OECD members | CIA AE | CIA's The World Factbook, Advanced economies |
| IMF AE | International Monetary Fund, Advanced economies | WB HIE | World Bank, High-income economies[1] |
| HDI≥0.9 | Human Development Index at or above 0.9[3] | QoL Top 30 | Quality-of-life index Top 30 countries |
| Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Austria |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Belgium |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Canada |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Denmark |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Finland |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| France |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Germany |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Greece |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Iceland |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Ireland |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Italy |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Japan |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Luxembourg |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Netherlands |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| New Zealand |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Norway |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Portugal |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| South Korea |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Spain |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Sweden |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Switzerland |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| United Kingdom |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| United States |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
| Hong Kong |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
| Singapore |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
| Taiwan |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
| Cyprus |
NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | 4 |
| Israel |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | 4 |
| Slovenia |
NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | 4 |
| Czech Republic |
YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | 3 |
| Malta |
NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | YES | 3 |
| Monaco |
NO | YES | — | YES | YES | NO | 3 |
| San Marino |
NO | YES | YES | YES | — | — | 3 |
| Slovakia |
YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | 3 |
| Andorra |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
| Bahrain |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
| Bermuda |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | — | 2 |
| Brunei |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
| Faroe Islands |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
| Greenland |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
| Hungary |
YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 2 |
| Kuwait |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
| Liechtenstein |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
| Macau |
NO | NO | — | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
| United Arab Emirates |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
| Antigua and Barbuda |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
| Aruba |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
| Barbados |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
| Cayman Islands |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
| Croatia |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
| Channel Islands |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
| Estonia |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
| Equatorial Guinea |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
| French Polynesia |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
| Guam |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
| Holy See |
NO | YES | — | — | — | — | 1 |
| Isle of Man |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
| Netherlands Antilles |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
| New Caledonia |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
| Northern Mariana Islands |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
| Oman |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
| Qatar |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
| Saudi Arabia |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
| The Bahamas |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
| Trinidad and Tobago |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
| U.S. Virgin Islands |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.179.112.25 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 1 September 2009
- Neither of these changes are necessary. In both, the only change was moving things around, particularly moving "The Bahamas" down: [18][19]. That's not necessary; when alphabetizing, in English, "the" is usually stripped.
- Also, in the future, when you propose a change like this, make sure to explain what the differences are, rather than just pasting hundreds of lines of Wiki markup. That way other editors won't have to go searching. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note to anyone else watching: The IP who suggested this change is a sockpuppet of a blocked user and has been blocked accordingly. Thus, s/he won't be able to respond here for a few days; please do not archive this thread before then. Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Change 4
{{editprotected}}
This
| Legend | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| HIE OECD | High-income OECD members | CIA AE | CIA's The World Factbook, Advanced economies |
| IMF AE | International Monetary Fund, Advanced economies | WB HIE | World Bank, High-income economies[1] |
| HDI≥0.9 | Human Development Index at or above 0.9[4] | QoL Top 30 | Quality-of-life index Top 30 countries |
| Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Bahamas |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
change this.
| Legend | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| HIE OECD | High-income OECD members | CIA AE | CIA's The World Factbook, Advanced economies |
| IMF AE | International Monetary Fund, Advanced economies | WB HIE | World Bank, High-income economies[1] |
| HDI≥0.9 | Human Development Index at or above 0.9[5] | QoL Top 30 | Quality-of-life index Top 30 countries |
| Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Bahamas |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
--W950712 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Not done: I would prefer to wait until Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rayesworied is resolved before considering this request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Please change this.
{{editprotected}}
This
| Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Bahamas |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
change to this.
| Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Bahamas |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
And This
change to this.
--You Can 《talk · Contributions》 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- What is the intent behind this change? Regards, Skomorokh 16:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- (You Can: please describe your changes in prose next time, and also explain the reason for them.)
- Apparently they want The Bahamas' "HDI >= 0.9" cell set to "No", which seems to be correct (according to List of countries by Human Development Index, the Bahamas' HDI=0.854), and they want the Bahamas removed from the list of High income economies, which seems incorrect based on this, which is cited by High income economy. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want to The Bahamas removed in WB High income economy list. --You Can 《talk · Contributions》 07:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then what's your second change for then? --Cybercobra (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please see second request. I don't requested The Bahamas removed in WB High income economy list. I have requested Arranges in alphabetical order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by You Can (talk • contribs) 10:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then what's your second change for then? --Cybercobra (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want to The Bahamas removed in WB High income economy list. --You Can 《talk · Contributions》 07:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Done I have done the first part (coloring the cell red) however I'm not doing the second ordering part. When in alphabetical order, it is common to neglect the "The". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Alphabetization of The Bahamas
Give one example of some organization alphabetizing "The Bahamas" under "T" for "The". Until then, I see no reason why the normal English convention of ignoring "the" when alphabetizing should not be adhered to. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Dubious
I have tagged {{Dubious}} on India, in the table in "Summary" section. Since as per, article India, HDI is ~0.612, while in table it is marked "Yes" for HDI>=0.9, also as per article Quality-of-life_index, India ranks 73, but in cloumn "QoL Top 30", it is marked "Yes". Vikrant42 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done both as I can confirm both points (India has an HDI of 0.579 and ranks 73rd for QoL). ConspicuousHamster (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Too many sockpuppets
There are too many sockpuppets editing this article. There are users that are being solely created to edit this article (example). This has to be stopped. Pristino (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- sockpuppet? me? funny. i'm not sockpuppet. it's you. you can't read discussion page? you are being solely created to edit this article. Stop POV and Vandalism.
- 1. CIA's DC list is invalid because it is totally outdated. only 90's data. you know today's year?
- 2. lending eligibility does not help classifing the developed or developing countries within the high income category. South Korea(Korea, Rep.) is not classfied developing by WB. ([20])
- 3. Qol above 6.917? 6.917 value means what? funny. i think you only rule out South Korea from the list. do not POV.
Turkey is developed and high-income country (2009)
Turkey is classified a high income,developed and newly industrialized country.Turkey is a member of G-20 Major economies.
GNI (per capital) is 13.135 $ (over 11.000 $). Human Development Index is High and over 0.800 For the source:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Turkey http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country
(talk) 00.32, 3 November 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC).
- but 13,135$ is PPP. WB's high income lists based GNI per capita(nominal). Turkey's GNI per capita(nominal, 08) is 9,340$. [[21]] Turkey is classfied upper-middle income country. HDI, This section quote "Very high human development" with an HDI at or above 0.900. G20 members are world major economies and regional power, but does not help classifing the developed or developing country. 122.42.121.124 (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- g20 just means 20 major economies. china is in g20 but it is not considered as developed nation. also gdp per capita in nomial is below $10,000 and HDI is below 0.9. Turkey is regional power and major economy but not developed country211.207.76.87 (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Turkey is by no means a developed country. Actually its pretty far from it. Development of a country is measured by a combination of GDP per capita, HDI, quality of life and other factors like infant mortality, literacy rate, life expectancy and others. How can we call Turkey a developed country when it is No 79th in the UN HDI ranking nehind countries like Albania or Colombia? Also infant mortality is pretty high. 10% of Turkish people live with less than 2$ per day. Turkey is a purely developing country.77.83.244.139 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Turkish HDI is already over 0.800 and GDP (ppp) is $ 13.168... A country is classified as developed country if GDP is over $11.000 and HDI is over 0.800.HDI is not " very high " but high.I don't know how can you say that " 10% of Turkish people live with less than 2$ per day".You don't show any source...Everyone can visit IMF'S and CIA's page for information about Turkey.
Albanian GDP is $6.500 AND Colombian GDP is $8.000..Turkish GDP iS $13.168....(visit wikipedia "country pages")--Cengiz ergun1987 (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- A country is classified as developed by the UN if it has an HDI of 0.900 and greater. NOT 0.800. Otherwise, Turkey along with Colombia, Albania, FYROM and many other clearly developing countries would be called developed. All developed countries have VERY HIGH HDI and the following characteristics: very high GDP per capita (vast majority in the excess of 30,000 $, but defenately more than 20,000 $), high quality of life index (see Economist relevant index), very low infant mortality, high literacy rate, high life expectancy. Turkey has none of them. 77.83.244.139 (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
High income OECD members
Section was inconsistent with link to Worldank's data. I've corrected this (removed Turkey which is not on the list of high-income OECD members from link and added Poland which is), I've corrected wrong numbers too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.67.228 (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've noticed where the problem was: Worldbank's internet page opens diffrent datasets under diffrent internet browsers. Internet Explorer opens dataset from year 2009 and Firefox opens dataset from 2008. That was the source of inconsistency see: http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups#OECD_members. Poland is on newer one as high-income but on the older one not. Nevertheless I'm leaving changes because they concern newer data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.67.228 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed problems with the World Bank pages. I keep on having various versions of the WB's pages.
It is interesting to notice that there are other changes in the list. Except Poland, Latvia is also a new in the High Income Econony. Perhaps it would be good to edit the high income economy section as well!? Regards, Roman
Something wrong...
Under the Quality-of-Life section, the Singapore flag is paired with the name Uruguay. Please change this as I am not sure if its Singapore or Uruguay that is supposed to come in this section... Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.80.62 (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I have put back an early QoL list with a ref that looks better. Is it OK? (Msrasnw (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
Quality-of-life survey
The International Living Quality-of-life list looks very strange to me. Is this organisation a reliable source? Uruguay/Namibia/Grenada higher QoL than Singapore (Msrasnw (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
- The HDI measures three parameters only (economy, health, and education), while the International Living Quality-of-life survey - measures much more (besides economy and health): Cost of living, Leisure and culture, Environment, Freedom, Infrastructure, Risk and security, and finally...: Climate. Note that Singapore has very bad scores in three parameters: Environment (due to an intensive air polution), Climate (due to high humidity with abundant rainfall), and Freedom (as a non-democratic country, having one party only in the parliament, due to the way the government arranges the election zones). Note also that the best score in Cost of living is Iraq's (100!), while the worst score (in Cost of living) is Sweden's (0!). Note also that the best score in Climate is Zimbabwe's (100!), although this country has the worst score in Economy (0!). Note also that the next HDI report is going to add more parameters, mainly: Freedom. Eliko (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
ABOUT INTERNATIONAL LIVING
Here's a couple of "guiding principles" to whoever tries to include International Living as a source: The IL website is on Wikipedia's SPAM list!. This means that no links from that website should be referenced in any Wikipedia article. Another is that when you go to the IL website, there is a link to how they came up with their QLI figures for the different nations. They explicitly state that when those well researched figures did not jive "with their experience", then they opted for "their experience" over the solid research figures. Hype site — 'nuff said. Avionics1980 (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Economist vs. Newsweek rankings
How about we include both the Newsweek and Economist rankings? The Economist's index includes factors (e.g. climate) that are important to quality of life yet not included in the Newsweek ranking, which is narrower in scope. Athenean (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- We would have also to include the InternationalLiving 2010 Index, as appearing in this website, and in this diff. Note that InternationalLiving 2010 Index does include the factor of climate, among nine factors (1. cost of living. 2. leisure & culture. 3. economy. 4. environment. 5. freedom. 6. health. 7. infrastructure. 8. risk & safety. 9. climate).
- Additionally, as opposed to what you've pointed out, Newsweeks's index includes 20 factors, as follows:
- two factors of education (1. literacy rate. 2. average years of schooling).
- one factor of health (healthy life expectancy).
- seven factors of quality of life (1. income inequality 2. gender gap. 3. percent living on less than 2$ a day. 4. consumption per capita. 5. homicides per 100,000. 6. environmental health. 7. unemployment rate).
- seven factors of economic dynamism (1. productive growth. 2. sevices as % of GDP. 3. manufacturing as % of GDP. 4. innovation index. 5. ease of doing business. 6. time to resolve insolvency. 7. new business start time).
- three factors of political environment (1. freedom house rating. 2. political participation. 3. political stability).
- Eliko (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- International Living 2010 is a self-published website and does not appear to meet WP:RS, as opposed to The Economist and Newsweek. Sorry. Athenean (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Would you give a clear citation from WP:RS, that may verify your claim that this index does not meet WP:RS? Eliko (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- International Living 2010 is a self-published website and does not appear to meet WP:RS, as opposed to The Economist and Newsweek. Sorry. Athenean (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Eliko, for the reasons Athenian described before and for others (for instance that is the standard Index used in most if not all Wikipedia articles, I would suggest the Economist is left here. Also please note that the International Living website is on WIKIPEDIA SPAM LIST, in case you didnt know it. That means that no article should reference this site. So IL is totally out of question. I will include the Economist and please dont remove it.Avionics1980 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- @Avionics1980, the reason you have given (i.e. your saying that the Economist's index is the standard Index used in most if not all Wikipedia articles) is unacceptable, as I fully explained on your talk page, in bold letters, see ibid.
- Additionally, the page of InternationalLiving Index is not on WIKIPEDIA SPAM LIST, in case you didn't know that. This means that every article can have references to the page of internationalLiving index, though not to the page of their magazine (being another page, which is really on wikipedia spam list). I will include the InternationalLiving Index and please don't remove it.
- Eliko (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- @Eliko: Adding information from a site which is on WIKIPEDIA SPAM list is totally unacceptable. Whats even more unacceptable is that when you go to the IL website, there is a link to how they came up with their QLI figures for the different nations. They explicitly state that when those well researched figures did not jive "with their experience", then they opted for "their experience" over the solid research figures. Pretty unbelievable huh? And this is the sort of information YOU want to add in a Wikipedia article...Of course I am about to remove it.Avionics1980 (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Further to the above, those guys from IL actually admit that their QLI is BIASED!. They say: "We admit it, we are biased"...Hype site indeed....Enough said! Avionics1980 (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Amán, éxete díkio, Avionics! Since they clearly say they're biased, their index doesn't seem to be reliable at all, so it shouldn't appear in Wiliepdia. However:
- Regarding the spam list. 1. The very page of InternationalLiving index is on Wikipedia whitelist. 2. Wikipedia does permit to use pages not on the black list, even when the rest of the website is on the black list. 3. The whole website begins with "www.", while the page which includes the index begins with "www1.", so it's a definitely different website.
- Regarding the year: The word "Economist" too, is already mentioned in the text, so why should it be mentioned in the title as well? Look, in the case of Econonust's old index, the name of index is as important as the year: had the year been removed from the title, there would have been no justification for including such an old index in the article, as long as an updated index of 2010 is available, according to the resolution reached at the Mediation Cabel, that: "an old (qualitative) index shouldn't be used when a newer/updated (qualitative) index is available". If you don't agree with the mediator's resolution, and insist on removing the year from the title, then we'll have to undergo another process of mediation, for determining whether the previous resolution should be replaced by a new one.
- From WP:RS: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors..... Who are the authors? Who publishes this Internationalliving website? Who is the editorial board, and what fact-checking is there? In other words, what grounds are there to believe that this is a reliable source on par with The Economist and Newsweek? Athenean (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
"High income economies" by the World Bank
I have deleted this section on the grounds that the World Bank "High Income Economies are classified as the countries with a Gross National Income per capita of $12,196 or more in 2009. According to the United Nations definition, high income countries may also be developing countries. Thus, a high income country may be classified as either developed or developing. Because at this article we deal ONLY with developed countries, I suggest that we keep lists which present ONLY the developed countries. If we include lists that can include developing AND developed countries then the meaning of the article is lost and the reader becomes confused.Avionics1980 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
New 2010 Human Development Report issued by UN
HDI rankings must be ammended accordingly to reflect 2010 HDR: [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avionics1980 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Australia is NOT a developed country!!!!
Why is australia there, they are NOT a developed country, most australians are poor and live in slums. India should be on the list as we are one of the most developed countries in the world and very very rich is everyone, in australia they are very very poor nand racist goons but Indians are developed and rich, india should be high on this list, i intend to do it myself in the coming hours. Whoeever does reverts my change is a vandal and racist --Gargabook (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
HDI world map
Hello there. I believe this map:
| > 0.784 (Very High) 0.677–0.784 (High) 0.488–0.676 (Medium) | < 0.488 (Low) no data |
is superior to this map:
| Very High High Medium | Low data unavailable |
The blue to pink to red color scheme is very clear to understand in the first map. In the second map, however, the lowest category (low HDI) is nearly black, completely defeating visual perception and understanding. Both maps use the official categories used by the UNDP in its latest 2010 report to classify countries in very high, high, medium and low groups. What does everyone think? Which map serves the article best? Pristino (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- The second map could be suitable too, provided that the black is replaced by white. The logic is simple: a highr HDI has more blue and less white, whereas: a lower HDI has more white and less blue.
- On the other hand, the first map has the following logic: a highr HDI has more blue and less red, whereas: a lower HDI has more red and less blue.
- Kardrak's original map could have been even better, because it reflects the "formal" map presented by HDI Report, however it has no logic of colors (just as Kardrak's second map mentioned above has no logic of colors, unless the black is replaced by white).
- Eliko (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Estonia should not be marked on IMF advanced economies list
please fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.58.191 (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. Estonia was never on IMF list. Eliko (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Human Development Index
I am not sure whether it is just me who finds this hard to understand: "Many countries listed by IMF or[10] CIA as "advanced" (as of 2009), possess an HDI over 0.788 (as of 2010). Many countries[11] possessing an HDI of 0.788 and over (as of 2010), are also listed by IMF or CIA as "advanced" (as of 2009). " Is this a tautology? Also, I do not understand how a country can be classified as, "advanced (as of 2009) by having an HDI over 0.788 (as of 2010)" either I misunderstand this, or the phrase needs editing or further explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.240.199 (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Discrepancy in IMF advanced countries list
San Marino is not in the referenced list, though I am not arguing that it is not developed. If it is included, then the list is of 34 economies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.111.142 (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- The entry "San Marino" provides a special reference. See ibid. p. 169. Eliko (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Holy See or Vatican City?
The CIA list includes Holy See. However, this is not consistent with the Wikipedia article on Holy See, which does not identify the Holy See as a country. The flag used for Holy See in this article is, according the Vatican City article, is the flag of the Vatican City State. --211.25.129.2 (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
why is turkey a developed country in some parts but not in another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.79.100 (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I meet a girl from Australia...
I am from China, and I meet a girl from Australia. We discuss the broadband topic, our broadband in China is only 5 dollars for unlimited internet access, but their broadband for unlimited internet access is 150 dollars. So I subscribed to unlimited internet access for 5 dollars in China, she subscribed 50 dollars limited internet access broadband. I invite her to watch a movie, she refused just because her internet is limited. So How do you define the developed and developing countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.123.200.135 (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well for one, Australians have higher salary than the Chinese on average. Tommkin (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about Developed country. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
- ^ a b c d Country classification table, World Bank. Accessed on line December 22, 2008.
- ^ Indicator Tables HDI 2008, United Nations Development Programme, December 18, 2008. Some entities are not included in this report. In this case an HDI figure from the UN's last available report has been used, except in the cases of the Republic of China and Macau, which the UN has not calculated an HDI for; here, the figure of the entities' governments has been used.
- ^ Indicator Tables HDI 2008, United Nations Development Programme, December 18, 2008. Some entities are not included in this report. In this case an HDI figure from the UN's last available report has been used, except in the cases of the Republic of China and Macau, which the UN has not calculated an HDI for; here, the figure of the entities' governments has been used.
- ^ Indicator Tables HDI 2008, United Nations Development Programme, December 18, 2008. Some entities are not included in this report. In this case an HDI figure from the UN's last available report has been used, except in the cases of the Republic of China and Macau, which the UN has not calculated an HDI for; here, the figure of the entities' governments has been used.
- ^ Indicator Tables HDI 2008, United Nations Development Programme, December 18, 2008. Some entities are not included in this report. In this case an HDI figure from the UN's last available report has been used, except in the cases of the Republic of China and Macau, which the UN has not calculated an HDI for; here, the figure of the entities' governments has been used.
- ^ [24]