Talk:Developed country

Chile and Argentina

Why this countries are in Secondary emerging countries, Chile and Argentina have an HDI of 867 and 869, and the PIB PPP of Chile is 14.400 and in the next two years become an oficial nember of the OECD, this economy and country is in the first, not in the secondary...

Wikipedia just quotes FTSE. IF you have any questions - ask FTSE. Eliko (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Any resources on Developed Countries NOT incontrol of the U.S.?

Some diverse references would be nice.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

== 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)

Archive 1

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. Signature^brendel 22:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

About Macau

From the 7th paragraph (refer to the reference provided), it states: In 2004, Chinese regions at the front of modernization drive entered the development stage of second-time modernization. China's Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan had reached the level of developed countries, while Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin had caught up with moderately developed countries. Guia Hill 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article is based on international reports.
  • there is no such requirement that certain reports should be preferred, e.g. CIA or UN. All evidence should be respected.Guia Hill 20:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a debate between the sources! On one hand, "China Modernization Report" describes Macau as a developed country; On the other hand, the international UN organisation of UNCTAD, as well as the CIA, put Macau in the "developing country list". In case of debates between respected sources, what should be preferred - are official lists made by organisations, as UNCTAD, dealing with all countries. "China Modernization Report" gives no official list of all developed countries in the world. If Taiwan declares it is a sovereign state - should this declaration be respected? If Angola declares it is a developed country - should this declaration be respected? In footnotes - all unilateral declarations can be indicated, but the list itself can only be based on reports dealing with all countries. Eliko 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • To give no offical list of all countries doesn't mean the evidence is not valid. The report is conducted by China Modernization Strategic Studies Group under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. There is no requirement that CIA or UN has the final say. Guia Hill 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC):
      • there is no requirement for anything, but when there is a debate between sources - then the international source should be preferred. Eliko 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • what a laughable statement. Who authorised you if there is no requirement for anything, then the internataional source should be preferred. Actually CIA is not an international organization. It is an American organization indeed.Guia Hill 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
          • UNCTAD is an organization of the UN. Eliko 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
            • OK! good, the People's Republic of China is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, each of which has veto power on any UN resolution. Then the report from China should be respected. Guia Hill 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
              • "China Modernization Report" is not an official report of the UN. There is a debate between "China Modernization Report" and UNCTAD, so "China Modernization Report" can't have the final say. Therefore, Macau should be included in neither the "developing country list" nor in the "developed country list". Eliko 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• The article shouldn't be based on "original research".
  • there is no original research in this case.Guia Hill 20:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • An "original research" is (e.g.) any decision to ignore the list of the international UN organisation of UNCTAD, which classifies Macau as "developing". If there is a debate between the international UN organisation of UNCTAD - and "China Modernization Report", then that debate can be indicated in a footnote. Eliko 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • same as above
      • same as above. Eliko 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Macau is not recognized by any international organisation as a developed/advanced territory. On the contrary, the UNCTAD organisaion (of the UN), as well as the CIA, classify Macao as a "developing" territory.
  • some organizations stated that Macau is not recognised by CIA or UN doesn't mean this is the final conclusion.Guia Hill 20:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No final conclusion, therefore, Wikipedia puts Macau neither in "developing country list" nor in "developed country list". No final conclusion, therefore the debate between the international UN organisation of UNCTAD - and "China Modernization Report", is indicated in a footnote. Eliko 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • OK! therefore revert!Guia Hill 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you are the person who has to revert, since you agree the debate between the sources shouldn't be decided unilaterally. Eliko 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I think you can created yourself article as Developed country defined by American organization CIA or UN. Then, I will not revert it for sure! Guia Hill 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Since there is a debate between sources - then Wikipedia puts Macau neither in "developing country list" nor in "developed country list". No final conclusion, therefore the debate between the international UN organisation of UNCTAD - and "China Modernization Report", is indicated in a footnote. Eliko 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
            • If there is debates bewteen sources, according to wikipedia's policy, you should list both, but not only list in footnotes. Guia Hill 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
              • The debate is mentioned in a footnote, but the list of "developed" can't be built according to one source only (of China Modernization Report) - thus contradicting the other international source of the UN. Therefore, Macau should be included in neither the "developing country list" nor in the "developed country list". Eliko 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• The new citation about Macau (in "People's Daily") is now included in the footnote about Macau.

Eliko 19:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Again! there is no requirement that one source or international source that should be listed. You erased mine but I didn't erased all CIA info here and I gave you all face. Guia Hill 23:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't erase the information you supplied, since I indicated your source in a footnote. However, you did erase my footnote, which includes the other sources, and you erased all the other information about Cyprus and Slovenia etc.
• Note that my version includes no information denied by the China Modernization Report (since I didn't put Macau in "developing country list"). However, your version does include information denied by the international source of the UN.
• When there is a debate between sources - then Wikipedia shouldn't prefer China Modernization Report than the UN report. What should be done in case of debate between a private source and an international source - is to indicate the contradicting sources, but Wikipedia list can't include information denied by one of the sources taking part in the debate, namely by the international source (of the UN).

Eliko 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspected that you may have some psychartic problem indeed (no offensive). Who told you China Modernization Report was denied by the source of the UN? can you give me any evidence? I am not going to talk to you, since it wastes too much time on this. Guia Hill 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I too suspected that you may have some psychartic problem indeed (no offensive).

I didn't write that China Modernization Report was denied by the source of the UN. I wrote that the infornation (about Macau) supplied by China Modernization Report was denied by the source of the UN. See page xii table B. Macao is classified by UNCTAD in the list of "developing countries".

I, too, am not going to talk to you, since it wastes too much time on this.

Eliko 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Omitting important information

Why are the footnotes about Cyprus Macau and Slovenia omitted? The footnotes include important details about IMF, CIA, and UNCTAD regarding the developed countries. SSnormal 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are Eliko, right?! well, you can simply modify it that I omitted, however, if you erased Macau on the list, I will simply revert it. 74.12.182.133 01:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

data from CIA can't be used

CIA's info, like the report from Chinese Aca. of Science, can't be used because it is not an international organization like the UN. 74.12.182.133 02:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

interesting point. Indeed IMF, UN and Worldbank are independent organistations, while CIA is a (politically) biased organisation which obeys to one of the members in the LIST. Not that I doubt USA to be a developed country, but technically it shouldn't be there as it is not neutral. --194.203.215.254 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

other source should be used as well

there is no clear law/regulation/requirement stated that CIA should be used and other sources should be discriminated. There is no proof to prove that CIA is absolutely netural. If so, please provide concrete evidence. 74.12.182.133 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Some czech sources classify Czech Republic as "developed". Some hungarian sources classify Hungary as "developed". However, the CIA list (of developing countries) - which classifies Czech Republic and Hungary as "developing countries" - refers to all countries in the world, not only to Czech Republic or Hungary; That's why the CIA is more authoritative than the czech sources and the hungarian sources.
• China Modernization Report - which classifies Macau as a "developed territory" - refers to chinese territories only, while the CIA list (of developing countries) - which classifies Macau as a "developing territory" - refers to all countries in the world, not only to Macau; That's why the CIA list is more authoritative than the chinese report.
• CIA list of advanced countries - includes no information denied by any international organisation; On the other hand, the list based on China Modernization Report's classification of Macau as "developed" - is denied by some international organisations, such as UNCTAD organisation of the UN, which puts Macau in the list of "developing countries" (as one can see in page xii table B). This is another reason why the CIA list (of advanced countries) is more authoritative than the chinese report.
• The original Wikipedia list based on CIA list of advanced countries - includes no information denied by China Modernization Report (since the original Wikipedia list does not put Macau in any "developing country list"); On the other hand, the list based on China Modernization Report's classification of Macau as "developed" - does include information denied by some organisations, such as UNCTAD organisaion of the UN, as well as the CIA, which classify Macau as a "developing territory". This is another reason why the CIA list (of advanced countries) is more authoritative than the chinese report.
• There is a contradiction between China Modernization Report (which classifies Macau as a "developed territory") and the UNCTAD organisaion of the UN (as well as the CIA), classifying Macau as a "developing" territory. Therefore, the dispute between the sources should be resolved in favor of neither source, i.e. Macau should be included - neither in the "developing country list" nor in the "developed country list", and the dispute between the sources should be indicated (e.g. in a footnote).

Eliko 08:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

revert vandalism Eliko 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Macau should be on the list as reference already provided. Guia Hill 18:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Macau can't be in the list. Manstorius 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eliko or Manstorius, you should know that there is no ownership in wiki and everyone can come here and edit as long as they are rational with reference provided. There is no so-called article like Eliko's version of developed country. I suggest that you should create a blog and write down the list of developed country on your own. What do you think? 74.12.182.133 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee

The article is now undergoes an Arbitration Committee for solving the dispute between the editors. Sorry that 74.12.182.133 ignores my above comments, in which I explained why this article can't be based on a chinese report which contradicts a UN list. Eliko 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me to the page where the arbitration is taking place? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the user means the mediation cabal (even though they don't exist), see WP:MEDCAB. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I am here because of your WP:MEDCAB case (which may or may not exist as there is no cabal). ;-) Is this issue still a problem? I am opening this case. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25 Developed country. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Greeves! Thank you for coming to help us.

The problem is whether to accept the current version (which I and other editors support), or to change it (as other editors think). For more details see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25 Developed country.

Eliko 13:10, 29 June 2007 (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, Signature^brendel 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  High income

  Upper-middle income

  Lower-middle income

  Low income

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, Signature^brendel 22:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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, Signature^brendel 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, Signature^brendel 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, Signature^brendel 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

CIA advanced country list

The official classification of "advanced countries" is originally made by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, the IMF list doesn't deal with non-IMF memebrs. The advanced country list of the CIA intends to follow IMF list but adds few countries which can't be dealt with by IMF due to their not being IMF members. By May 2001, the advanced country list of the CIA was more comprehensive than the original IMF list; However, since May 2001 - two additional countries (Cyprus and Slovenia) have been added to the original IMF list, thus leaving the CIA list not updated. Below is the current CIA advanced country list, consisting of 35 countries:

• Andorra	• Faroe Islands	• Iceland	• Monaco	• South Korea
• Australia	• Finland	• Ireland	• Netherlands	• Spain
• Austria	• France	• Israel	• New Zealand	• Sweden
• Belgium	• Germany	• Italy	• Norway	• Switzerland
• Bermuda	• Greece	• Japan	• Portugal	• Taiwan
• Canada	• Holy See	• Liechtenstein	• San Marino	• United Kingdom
• Denmark	• Hong Kong	• Luxembourg	• Singapore	• United States

Eliko 19:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added the list above as it differs from the other two. Great job! Signature^brendel 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The current new version above is more asthetic.

2. Not Czech republic, but Cyprus.

3. Instead of "not the CIA advanced economy list" - it should have been written: "not to the CIA advanced economy list".

4. Instead of "As of 2001" I think "since 2001" is preferable.

Eliko 19:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the mistakes and conducted an "asthetic overhaul" w/ the new list above. Thanks, Signature^brendel 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You've fixed only 2 mistakes out of 4, so let me indicate all of the other mistakes.

1. Cyprus, not Cyrus.

2. Instead of "not the CIA advanced economy list" - it had better been written: "not to the CIA advanced economy list".

Eliko 19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I fixed 3 out of 4 and made one new mistake! ;-) I didn't fix mistake No. 3 because I didn't see it while scanning the section. I was a bit more careful this time around and think I caught all of them. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Not "the Cyprus" - but simply: Cyprus...

2. Cyprus was added to IMF list (6 years) before Slovenia was added (and not vice versa).

Eliko 19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh... gatcha. My, o my I am quite prone to mistakes this morning (more than usual!)... well at least "the Cyprus" makes me laught... I am not quite sure, however, what you want me to fix on point #2. Signature^brendel 20:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

On point #2 I simply meant Cyprus should have been mentioned before Slovenia (not vice versa).

What made me laugh is having read: "this morning...20:09, 14 July 2007"...

Eliko 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed... lol. I'm in California here it was before noon -I think ;-). Signature^brendel 02:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What about my comment regarding Cyprus and Slovenia? I was referring to your sentence: "Since 2001, however, Slovenia and Cyprus were added to the IMF but not to the CIA advanced economy list". Cyprus should have been mentioned before Slovenia (not vice versa), because Cyprus was added to IMF list - 6 years before Slovenia was added.

Eliko 09:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it just now. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case/Protection

I have unprotected the page as one party in the mediation case would not respond. Feel free to reprotect it if any problems occur. Thanks to Eliko for trying to help us sort out the problem! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

South Africa Developed?

I am having a problem with CIA developed list. How can South Africa be a developed nation with HDI lower than 0.7, the global average? South Africa is also listed as developing nation in the CIA lists. I think there is a problem with the source.

Kingj123 01:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you will need to contact the CIA. On Wikipedia we don't censor our sources. The CIA is a reputable source. While I too disagree about South Africa being developed country, we must represent the CIA list accurately. Signature^brendel 04:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this list made by CIA is very controversial (though I'd rather be more emphatic and say, quite simply, "wrong"). South Africa is poorer and less developed in its economy - as a whole, as we're not talking about that or that city or region in that country - than countries which are largely considered "developing" like Argentina, Brazil or Turkey. By the way, I don't know how Turkey was considered a developed country, since its average quality of life is worse than Argentina's or Brazil's and its economy isn't more industrialized than those of, e.g., Mexico. 201.9.53.39 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the advanced economy list better represents the developed countries, I think it would be better if we bring the advanced economy list first. Kingj123 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC) I am also thinking of deleting it for inaccuracy. Kingj123 23:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't delete the CIA list becuase you disagree with the CIA. It is not up to us as Wiki editors to judge the decision reputable sources make. We can move the advanced economy lists up becuase A as in advanced comes before D as in developed but not becuase we think it's better. All three lists come from reputable institutions and it isn't our call to decide which is better/worse nor is it up to us to censor our sources. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

::"You can't delete the CIA list becuase you disagree with the CIA."

Correct, that would not be a valid reason to delete.

::"It is not up to us as Wiki editors to judge the decision reputable sources make."

Who decides that these CIA sources are reputable, you? It IS up to the Wikiusers, to chose reliable information and sources. And CIA is not reliable, when it states Southafrica and Turkey are developed/advanced countries. By the way, CIA is not even a reliable institution to analize economic status of countries. We could then use the KGB's or other inteligences sources here to add economic status of countries, its just not serious, neither profund. --194.203.215.254 11:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstook my second quote - both quotes say basically the same thing. The CIA is a reliable source, even if we disagree with it. See WP veriviablity guidelines for why the CIA qualifies. As a result, we have no other choice than to feature the CIA list in its entirity. Signature^brendel 23:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what CIA is trying to get. CIA says that they count OCED countries as developed but why South Korea is not included? Also, the term "the North" is out of use today after Soviet Union collapse marking the end of the cold war. Kingj123 15:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you will need to contact the CIA. I agree, South Korea should be on there - but it's not my call to make in my capacities as a WP editor.

I think the IMF list should take precednese. The CIA list is disputable. Signature^brendel 07:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I can see to why the CIA considers South Africa as a developed coutry is for political reasons, so there's a "developed" coutry in Africa, but then again, they don't even consider any country in South America "developed," not even Chile which really should be. I think a statement should be added stating that the CIA's decision to consider South Africa developed is extremely contreversial, but by no means should we delete the CIA source, even if they prove themselves to be complete idiots. Anyways, I think that the charts at the bottom of the page really shows the state South Africa is in when is illustrates how it only passes in one of the six categories. Carthradge (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

QOL

Shouldn't the UN's "Quality of Life" rankings be used, rather than some small unrecognisable institute's claims? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly we can add that list. But it is not up to us to decide which institutions definition is to be adopted. As Wikipedia editors we can only present the information available to us through reputable institutions. The CIA, IMF, UN and World Bank are reputable sources. Lists and definitions used by all these sources need to be featured in the same manner as they are set forth by these institutions. Again, it is not our call to decide which list is better. Please beware of OR. This article is not the result of editors conducting research. The research is conducted by our sources, not us. We simply present their conclusions in the most unaltered form possible. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Except I'm not referring to CIA/IMG/UN/WB statistics, I'm referring to statistics published by a magazine, The Economist...it's no more credible than any other magazine in its field, and significantly less credible than the UN or CIA. Hence why I'm suggesting we use them instead. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 07:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree here with the people that think that the CIA list is incorrect. Everybody must understand that countries are classified as developed mainly from their economic indicators and from HDI. Now I dont know how much cradible CIA is, but I do know it is an intelligence agency and not an economic organization or United Nations organization. Thus, its not CIA's job to clasify countries, neither it is a credible source FOR THIS specific topic. IMF, World Bank, the Economist and the UN for the HDI are far better and specialized organizations for such info.So its up to Wikipedia to filter and to select the best sources for data. CIA is not the best source for economic and human development data, when it states that Turkey and South Africa are developed. Clearly those two countries are far from developed. Both countries have mass poverty, low GDP per capita and low HDI. I think its totally incorrect to present such a list. The Economist and IMF list represent by far the truth.88.218.89.31 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. CIA Indicators are misleading and very unreliable. It's up to the users to decide to include encyclopedical quality sources into this site, and not to "promote" less serious information like CIA data is. --194.203.215.254 12:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

CIA

I don't understand what CIA is trying to get. CIA says that they count OCED countries as developed but why South Korea is not included? Also, the term "the North" is out of use today after Soviet Union collapse marking the end of the cold war. CIA also ignores HDI index, GDP, Income, type of industries and Quality of Life which is very absurd. If you want to chanllenge that statement, I am happy to give more explanations.

IT is up to us to decide if the source is reliable or not. Kingj123 15:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Kingj123 says. CIA list is clearly wrong, when it states that South Africa and Turkey are developed countries. Those two countries have low GDP per capita, low quality of lifes and low HDI. I really cant understand with what criteria did those guys at the CIA produced such a list. The point is that the CIA is not even a credible organization when it comes to rank countries according to their development. CIA is an intelligent organization, not an economic organization. There are other organizations that specialize in that area, such as IMF, World Bank, Economist ect. I think the CIA list should be removed immediately and keep the IMF list which is the correct list, that reflects reality. It is the job of Wikipedians to present CREDIBLE and CORRECT data and not just all data.88.218.32.55 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And what makes you guys more qualified sources than the CIA? Let's stay away from original research or POV. 151.44.152.248 01:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, 88.218.32.55 is from Greece, whose only personal concern was to remove Turkey from the list. 151.44.152.248 01:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And Kingj123 was upset because the CIA wasn't very generous towards his country, South Korea. Unfortunately, every economic indicator in Wikipedia includes both the CIA and the IMF (and if possible, the World Bank) lists, because these organizations have different criteria in measuring which countries qualify to get into their lists and which ones don't, or how they rank. We can't pick one list or erase the other according to our personal tastes, or according to "which one glorifies my country the most", or "which one doesn't glorify my enemy". 151.44.152.248 01:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The CIA is a reliable source; please see the WP policy regarding reliable sources and feel free to tell us why should not use the CIA as a source. As for the other comments, lets assume good faith: in this case that editors arn't driven by nationalism. 151..., is right "We can't pick one list or erase the other according to our personal tastes, or according to 'which one glorifies my country the most', or 'which one doesn't glorify my enemy'." Regards, Signature^brendel 07:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As I explained before the CIA is not a reliable source for this subject because:

1. The CIA is not an economic or development organization. Whether or not a country is developed, is primarily a combination of economic performance and human development. CIA doesnt produce itself either data.

2. The CIA cannot be regarded as a credible source for this specific topic since it regards Turkey and South Africa as developed (!!) and it excludes other countries eg South Korea, which clearly are developed countries. Now Its not me that says all those stuff, but credible and international economic organizations such as IMF, World Bank, the Economist. All those organizations, of course, regard Turkey and South Africa as developing simply because those two countries do not qualify for developed status. And how could they. Turkey for instance has GDP per capita of $9,000 and HDI in par with Sri Lanka (no 92). South Korea on the other hand has a high HDI and high GDP per capita. I dont know what political reasons might influence CIA's list, but clearly that list is wrong.

3. I would like anyone who challendges that, to bring forward any OTHER evidence from other organizations that prove that CIA's list is correct; ie show us data that prove that Turkey and South Africa are developed and South Korea isnt.

4. I believe its our duty to present to every reader, incuding ourselves, CORRECT and RELIABLE data. This contradiction of CIA and IMF data is very confusing. One would ask himself whether South Africa is developed or not, when clearly he shouldnt ask this question once he has read an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia must give this answer firmly and correclty.

For these reasons I will erase the CIA list, since I didnt understand the non qualified person explanation213.5.211.252 16:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't close a discussion unilaterally. No consensus to delete the list has been found. I have reverted the edits and hope I will not have to protect the page from an IP edit war. As for the abovem No. 1 fails to discredit the CIA (it is widely used as a source of economic stats), No. 2 is your opinion, No. 3 is misplacing the burden of proof, No. 4 is correct which is why we need to work w/ the WP:OR policy and keep the CIA list. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we describe information published in reliable sources as per our policy of verifiability, in which it is clearly stated that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

If a source, such as the CIA made a mistake, we simply say that "the CIA says Turkey and South Africa as developed countries", attributing that viewpoint to them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bingo, Jossie! That's exactely it. Signature^brendel 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

CIA list compromise

after quite a debate about the CIA list, in which I have seen arguements from both sides which seem plausible to me, I think it would't be a bad idea to include the information itself into the article that this list is polemic. So far, I don't think that many users will be able to defend the point that Turkey and South Africa are developped countries, and that in comparison South Korea isn't. Don't you think? And no, I am not korean neither of any of these countries mention in case you might think i am nationaly biased --194.203.215.254 12:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to go to a war edit here, but leaving a list ( I dont care who's list is) that says that Turkey and South Africa are developed countries and South Korea isnt, is totally unacceptable. Its wrong, its confusing, it gives wrong impressions. And since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, commited to provide accurate and reliable sources, we cannot let this error continue. We could state that there is another list issued by CIA and add a reference, but leaving this list in the article is absolutely irresponsible. An example for you to understand, based on the FACT that neither Turkey or South Korea are developed countries and South Korea is. A South Korean will find it difficult to conclude if his country is developed or not when he reads his article. He feels his country is developed, but when it comes to Wikipedia to get informed he reads contradicting lists. His country is developed based on IMF, but its not based on CIA. So, since we re not in a quantum world, either South Korea IS developed or its NOT. And it is, based on various data from various organizations. Similarly, Turkey and South Africa are not developed. But from the article someone could say they are.... I m not South Korean as you can see, but I m reasonable enough I think to see what everybody sees. This article is contradicting and we need to change that.88.218.37.193 15:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

All kind of information should be included, as long as it is well sourced and I think the CIA is a reliable source. There's no reason to delete it. What I do agree is that if the notion of Turkey and South Africa being developed countries is reasonably small, it should be included in a short text, noting its rarity. If we develop a long detailed list we are violating Wikipedia's Undue Weight policy. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 21:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that is the big mistake here and the focal point. CIA, for the specific article is NOT reliable. A source cannot be reliable when it states that Turkey and South Africa are DEVELOPED countries!! There is absolutely no other source to back up this argument. In case you dont know both countries are very poor, with low HDI's. Particularly Turkey has an HDI that is in par with SRI LANKA's !! And CIA decides that is developed for (I dont know) political reasons or economical reasons and we have to include it in Wikipedia just because it says CIA? Without filtering it? No! Thats totally unacceptable and cotradicting. On the other hand South Korea is developed as you all know. The correct lists, as we all know, are the IMF list and the Economist list. The CIA advanced economy list is also in par with the other two. But the CIA developed list is totally wrong and thus it should be erased. Thanx!88.218.53.88 16:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the CIA is reliable. You may agree or disagree, but the CIA as a "data keeper" is a reliable sources and an authority on the subject of this article. As Alex pointed out above "All kind of information should be included, as long as it is well sourced." Remember the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth but verifiablity. Please do not delete the list again without consensus having been found first and mind Wikipedia policy, which clearly states that all data from reliable sources - be it true or false in your view - must be included. Thanks, Signature^brendel 09:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Prove me that CIA is reliable source for the specific topic. You say it is reliable, it doesnt mean it is! I believe, based on that list, that the CIA is NOT reliable. You say it is. Why should YOU be correct?

I believe I am correct for the following reasons:

1) Not ONE other cradible ECONOMIC organization (IMF, World Bank, Economist) agrees with the CIA developed list that you present. NO ONE agrees that Turkey and South Africa are developed and South Korea isnt!

2) Its not logical. Thus, because you and I are logical we need to filter any unreasonable data. You cannot just state that because the CIA is, in your opinion a credible source for this subject, whatever the CIA says, must be included in Wikipedia. A country with a GDP per capita of 9,000 $ and HDI no 92 in the world, CANNOT be regarded as developed, even if President Bush, himself says so!

3) I ve said it before, I ll say it again. CIA is NOT an economic or human development organization that produces such development data.It takes data from various sources and presents it. The CIA might be a credible source for other stuff. But not for this obviously. Now if the CIA is credible, why dont we add KGB or Mossad or any other Government Agency as well?

I really cant understand your persistence. Are you working for the CIA?:) Please dont revert again. Think about it a little bit. thanx!88.218.37.133 16:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As wikipedians, we are responsible of choosing which sources we like, because we know that there are many other reliable sources out there. I agree that we shouldn't delete or add a source that would satisphy our emotional preference, however, if we support our arguments with contructive points and evidence, I don't see why we can't delete (or add another) source. Also, I agree that the "wikipedia is not the truth," however, we should place the "truth" as our main goal. Kingj123 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Article needs protection

I don't think the anonymous vandal (88...) from Greece considers to give up. He will simply on-off-on his modem and come back. By the way, it doesn't take a person with the insight of Hercule Poirot to understand the motive behind the concerns of 88... or Kingj123. Actually even Inspecteur Clouseau would be able to see it. 206.71.149.80 16:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think there seems to be necessity for partial protection for a while.Farmanesh 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you requested it - I have granted protection for 48 hours. If you want more protection please request it as the noticeboard. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

South Africa, Taiwan, Portugal and Turkey

Ok, I think we all know that those 4 countries are definitely not developed, even if they were sourced, I could probably find references stating that Russia is a developed country as well but that doesn't mean it's correct, but it that's the case, I guess I'm gonna have to add a more countries to the list because there are some others that I can definitely back up. Supaman89 16:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree with you Supaman89. I have fought exactly for that reason, to remove the so called CIA DEVELOPED LIST, because as you say, some countries are defenately NOT developed. We cannot reproduce false data just because the CIA is considered by some guys here as credible. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not as democratic and logical as someone would want to, because even though we revert something clearly worng, some other guys revert it back again to the wrong status. And not just that! They enforce the wrong thing by threatening with ban! Unbelievable for sure. But who cares, the only thing I m sorry for, is that WIkipedia will end up being non-credible if some people continue to add nonsense.88.218.55.246 18:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? Portugal isn't a developed country? Just take a look at to the IMF advanced economy list or the FTSE Global Equity Index or the Quality-of-life index and isn't Portugal in those lists too?? Open your eyes dude. Do you travel a lot? I don't think so. --85.243.117.133 (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

While I would certainly agree that under standard definitions neither Turkey nor South Africa can be considered to be developed countries, the same cannot be said of either Portugal or Taiwan which are certainly developed. The IMF and World Bank classification schemes, which are arguably the two most influential, both support this contention as does a quick glance at social and economic indicators relevant to the determination of whether a given country is to be considered as being developed or not. I would agree, however, that the CIA is not a particularly relevant source for this article and would support it being removed as a major subsection... --The Way (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The CIA is, however, a credible source. The list is called a list of "developed countries" and is, therefore, highly relevant to the WP article on "developed countries." You may agree or disagree with the CIA list, but the list is authoritative and relevant to the article's subject matter and is thus to be included in the article. Signature^brendel 23:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Contacting CIA

The whole point of Wikipedia is sharing, addressing and listening to different opinions, and collaborate. I think many editors who want to restore CIA source are stubborned and are not listening to the concerns of the other editors.

At any rate, I tried to contact CIA by email but it does not work apparently, because I need an entry in my message field. can some one address this issue to cia or at least tell me how. thanks.--Kingj123 16:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

For the time being the CIA list will stay as it is authoritative and relevant. Whether or agree or disagree with list is a different matter. Removing the list becuase you disagree with it is OR and therefore in violation of WP policy. Signature^brendel 23:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Overdeveloped" countries?

Scandinavian countries, Japan, Canada, Australia? Could this article talk about them? --Chargin' Chuck (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are listed as developed - from the HDI rankings it's pretty clear that they're the world's most developed. Could you provide a source that classifies these countries as overdeveloped? If so, please do provide it. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Links

Should the links in each list link to the article for each country (e.g. Ireland), or to the article on the economy of each country (e.g. Economy of Ireland)? Maybe link to Ireland in the first list, and to Economy of Ireland in the next list?69.138.188.233 (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

New map is vastly inaccurate and based on "cherry picking" information

Highly accurate map, showing quasi-developed countries like Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, and lesser developed countries like Turkey. Fair and square.

1) I didn't know that the Central Asian dictatorships ruled by former KGB agents (like the notorious Turkmenbashi of Turkmenistan, which is currently run by Turkmenbashi Jr.) are so "almost developed" in terms of democracy, human rights and per capita GDP. Not to mention Mongolia which is considerably poor. I appreciate the effort that's made for designing the map, but the information on it is totally ridiculous.

2) Turkey is a developed country according to the CIA and a newly industrialized country according to economists and political scientists worldwide. How can it be "developed" or "newly industrialized" and a founding member of the OECD since 1961 when, according to this new map, it's "developing"? The same case is valid for two other OECD members, Mexico and Brazil.

There is some considerable "cherry picking" here which leads to inaccurate/unfair information. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I explained this on your talk page. The only "cherry picking" I did was that I removed two groups (4 dragons and least developed countries) from the "developing" category because there is overlap. Everything else is exactly as it is on the CIA website, whose lists are based on what the IMF says. Turkey is a developing country just like Mexico, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, South Africa etc.. who are all listed on both the "less developed" and "developing" lists on the CIA website. The only "transitioning" country that's listed as "less developed" as well i(was) Mongolia which I just fixed. None of the others (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Moldova, Ukraine etc..) are listed as developing or less developed. The fact that you don't agree with this information is completely irrelevant. You don't make up definitions, neither do I. Sbw01f (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, Sbw01f, but I happen to agree with Res Gestæ Divi Augusti. There are countless of definitions of what "developed" and "developing" countries are, and this is supposed to be a general encyclopedia, not a mirror of the CIA Factbook. Many of these definitions are considered outdated by organizations like the United Nations or Gapminder, and that's why these organisms make no rigid categorizations like these anymore. --Mangy Cheshire Cat (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The IMF has specific definitions and groupings. This map is based on those definitions and groupings and that is made quite clear. I'm sorry that your country is "developing", but I'm only relaying that information from a reliable source, which is exactly what wikipedia is for. It doesn't matter if these terms are considered outdated by some other organisations, this article is about the terms, and they are not considered out-dated by the IMF which is what the map is based on. I'm tired of people whining about their countries all the time regarding my maps. Everyone always has a problem with something. I don't make this stuff up. Go write an email to the IMF if you really care so much, but in the mean time, keep your POV and your bias out of wikipedia. Sbw01f (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

World map showing the Human Development Index as presented by the United Nations in 2007.

Lets just make a map that says TURKEY IS THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AND THE MOST PROSPEROUS, EVERYONE ELSE IS LYING. Sound good? Sbw01f (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First explain me how Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are economically more advanced than Turkey, then I will accept. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not my job to explain anything to you. It's my job to get information from one place, and put it here on wikipedia. That's it. If you want to know why they group countries the way they do, I suggest you go to their website, or email them and ask. Sbw01f (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is actually. In the "Image Summary" it's written that the information is based on the CIA World Factbook, which is strange because the CIA World Factbook defines Turkey as a Developed Country. In the "image caption", on the other hand, it says that the information is based on IMF data. Make up your mind: Is it based on CIA or IMF data, or just a "cherry picking" hodge-podge of your own personal "original research", based on your personal opinions? Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained this to you. They have about 10 different group lists. Look at the DEVELOPING and LESS DEVELOPED categories, Turkey is listed under both of them. It is NOT listed under ADVANCED ECONOMIES which is what my map is based on. Sbw01f (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your map also shows that Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan are economically more advanced than Turkey, which is laughable. Check out the GDP per capita of these countries, and their total GDPs. BTW, I noticed that you corrected Mongolia after I warned you. Good... Which other countries should you re-paint? Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you just not read or something? I changed Mongolia because it's the only one in that group that's listed under developing as well, not because you "warned" me. You don't need to tell me to "check out" their GDP's, I'm the one who created/updated all those GDP maps all over wikipedia. That has nothing to do with the fact that the IMF lists them as transitioning, and Turkey as developing. Sbw01f (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel offended by the fact that Turkey is a developing country, but please, I must stress this again, your opinion and your point of view has no place here and is of no importance at all. If you think my map is "rubbish", email the IMF and/or CIA and complain to them. When they change their definitions, I'll change the map. Sbw01f (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "offended", I only find it hilarious that, according to your map, many poor countries are "in transition" while Turkey which has 3 times higher GDP per capita is "less developed". If you believe that you own Wikipedia (or the Developed Country article), fine. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I own wikipedia or this article. I believe you have no right to remove sourced and verified content because you're personally hurt over the material.

GDP is not the only measure of development. Those countries were part of the Soviet Union, and although their economic situation went to hell after the collapse, they were still left with a higher level of modernity, social structure, infrastructure and potential than most developing countries. For example, the education systems are better in those countries than in Turkey, and they have literacy rates on par with developed countries, which Turkey does not. And look at the GDPs in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya..are those developed countries too? Sbw01f (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is also laughable. Check out the best universities in those countries and compare them with the best universities in Turkey, in terms of funding, R&D projects, budget and facilities. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So? The Indian Institutes of Technology were ranked the 50th best in the world, higher than any school in Turkey. Does India have a better education system than Turkey? The UN knows better than you. So does the IMF. So does the CIA. This is why wikipedia doesn't allow original thought. Because there are people like you who think they know better when they don't. Sbw01f (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sbw01f basically I agree with what you say. Turkey is a DEVELOPING COUNTRY regardless of what the CIA says. All other organizations define it as DEVELOPING. Clearly a country with GDP per capita of $9,000 and HDI no 84 in the world (medium) cant be considered Developed. This is hillarious. Not the Developing part. By the way, note that Armenia has actually a HIGHER HDI than Turkey. So this part of the map is correct.What is NOT correct and should be corrected is Cyprus. Cyprus (the Greek administrated part and thus whole of Cyprus due to UN recoginition) is highly developed. Its GDP appoaches that of the other Western European countries and its HDI is high (no 28). So this must be changed as soon as possible.Aee1980 (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkey's Nominal GDP per capita is actually higher than Russia's, for the note. By the way, the IMF lists Turkey in Central and Eastern Europe (check also this link), and not in Asia, as Sbw01f wrongly misinterpreted while preparing the map. Turkey should also be "light blue", according to the IMF's definitions. But he is heavily biased towards Turkey, that's why I don't expect him to make the necessary corrections. Other OECD and G20 industrial nations members like Brazil and Mexico (in short the newly industrialized countries, which are more developed than developing countries) should also be in light blue. This map, in its current state, reflects the personal opinions of Sbw01f, and not the truth that's out there in the "Real World" (which is quite different than the "Wiki World"). 151.57.197.161 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Back again? I thought you said you didn't care anymore.. Well I'm not going to bother arguing with you because you're obviously too preoccupied with trying to prove how great Turkey is to understand what I've been trying to explain to you, and I'm sure you don't care either way as long as Turkey gets to be called "developed" which it isn't.. But just thought I'd point out that you're wrong. Russia's nominal GDP per capita is $2000 higher than Turkeys ($2,500 PPP). Estimates put it at about $8000 higher ($13,000 PPP) than Turkeys in 2013 says the IMF. Now is this the part where you start throwing out insults again? Sbw01f (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sbw01f, read my previous post. What about Cyprus? Cyprus is defenately developed, why is not blue coloured in the map?Aee1980 (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about Cyprus, but the reason it's coloured orange is because it's listed as developing, not transitioning or advanced. See this link. Sbw01f (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that although the CIA World Factbook classifications "advanced economies" and "countries in transition" originate with the IMF, they do not reflect current IMF classifications. The IMF used the classification "countries in transition" in 2003, but from 2004 on it has no longer used this classification as a major grouping in their World Economic Outlook. Rather, they have used just two major groups: (1) "advanced economies" and (2) everything else, currently called "emerging and developing economies". This second category includes the CIS. Also, the IMF has added Cyprus, Slovenia, and Malta to the "advanced economy" classification, but the CIA World Factbook has not kept pace with this.

The term "least developed countries" appears to originate with the UN, but the list in the CIA World Factbook does not match the UN's list. The lists have 42 and 49 countries, respectively: the CIA list omits Angola, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Madagascar, Senegal, the Solomon Islands, East Timor, and Zambia, but adds Botswana and Cape Verde. Since Botswana and Cape Verde were formerly LDCs which have since been removed from the UN's list, it appears that the CIA is using obsolete data here as well. Spacepotato (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I wasn't aware that the CIA was using older lists than the IMF. It's quite unfortunate that the IMF only started using two groups. I think most people here can agree that the worlds countries do fall into more than just two categories in terms of development. Sbw01f (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

GDP/capita (PPP, 2007), current international dollars. From IMF World Economic Outlook, IV-2008.

If the IMF no longer uses the "in transition" group, it must mean that they feel it no longer reflects a significant economic difference. To see if this is true, I have plotted the 2007 PPP-based per capita GDP of various countries. The data comes from the April 2008 IMF World Economic Update. The countries classified by the IMF as advanced economies are in dark blue, the countries designated by the CIA World Factbook as "in transition" are in light blue (except for Slovenia, which is now classified as advanced), the countries designated as "least developed" by the UN are in red, and the remaining countries are in orange. As you can see, the group of advanced economies is distinguished by their high GDP/capita, and the group of least developed countries by their low GDP/capita, but there is nothing to clearly distinguish the "in transition" countries from the others.

  Advanced economies

  Emerging and developing economies (not least developed)

  Emerging and developing economies (least developed)

Classifications by the IMF and the UN

Since the "in transition" classification is no longer used by the IMF and appears not to be useful, I suggest that it should be dropped from the map. Also, it would be better to use current data for the lists of advanced and least developed countries, instead of the obsolete data used by the CIA World Factbook. I have prepared a possible replacement map on the left. It shows all countries classified by the IMF as advanced in blue. The other countries, designated by the IMF to be emerging and developing economies, are in red (for those classified as least developed by the UN) and orange (for those not so classified). Spacepotato (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the version of the map created by Spacepotato is better than the one currently used and should replace it.Aee1980 (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's a lot of unfairness in the current map. This one in 3 colors (for low-medium-high development) is more fair and less controversial. 151.57.205.158 (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists

How about removing the long and repetitive lists of nations that give an illusion this article is any more than a stub? The maps are here to take over the job, and the lists are simply blatantly unnecessary and space-wasting. Yes, we know the UK is a developed country, we don't need to hear it six times. Thoughts/comments? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, because many people (even in highly developed countries like the United States) can't even spot their own country on the world map, let alone recognizing other countries from their "shape" and "location" - because country names are not written on the maps. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If people can’t find their country or a particular country, they can at least find it in a list.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Developed and Emerging Markets map

MSCI All Country World Index by Morgan Stanley Capital International as of June 2006 [1]

  Emerging markets

  Developed markets

Note that South Korea is listed as Korea in the list (starts with K, not S). Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel is also listed among the Emerging Markets by Morgan Stanley. This term is also used by The Economist magazine; actually you can check out the last page of any The Economist issue, where there's the Emerging Markets Indicator chart, with quarterly GDP growth rates, inflation figures, foreign reserves, balance of trade, etc. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Holy See

Shouldn't The Holy See in the list be replaced by The Vatican in the CIA list? I think this quote from the Vatican article covers what I'm saying: "Vatican City should not to be confused with the Holy See, which existed long before the foundation of the state of the Vatican City. The two entities even have distinct passports: the Holy See, not being a country, only issues diplomatic and service passports; the state of Vatican City issues normal passports. In both cases the number of passports issued is extremely limited." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.177.252 (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Prominent map

Right now you have a map right next to the intro while the rest are a little further down, I would strongly recommend moving that map, it makes it look like we are endorsing that as the regular or 'common' definition. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be clear that we are not endorsing the map as the most correct or most common definition of developed country. The map caption explicitly states that the map shows various named categories defined by the IMF and the UN. Spacepotato (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet that is a very customised definition, and the image is used to annotate the definition (section 0) of the article, with a large break between it and the following clearly annotated alternate definitions. I would personally suggest moving it down to be near the other images. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's useful to have a map in section 0 to give the reader a quick overview of the situation, even in the absence of complete agreement on which countries are developed and which countries are not. Spacepotato (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense, you're saying since there's no definition we'll give them OUR quick definition as an overview. But as there is no concrete definition the only NPOV solution is to list all possibilities without giving priority to any of them, which would suggest endorsement by Wikipedia. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's illustrative, not definitive, and again, we're not endorsing it. I suppose a disclaimer could be added. Spacepotato (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it illustrates the definition. As such it wouldn't be a stretch to say many people would misinterpret that as the definitive map. I don't think a disclaimer would do it, I would prefer moving the picture among the others below. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It illustrates the lead (section 0), not the definition (section 2.) Spacepotato (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"The term developed country, or advanced country, is used to categorize countries with developed economies in which the tertiary and quaternary sectors of industry dominate." - seems very defining to me. It is not the fully fledged definition section, but it is essentially a basic definition on its own. I don't understand why this is so problematic. If it were annotating a reasonable widely accepted definition it should be placed next to the section discussing such a definition (like all the other images), but since that section is notably absent, it should be removed. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The map is an illustrative overview of the article topic, and hence useful to the reader. The fact that it is in the lead does not mean that it is a definition or an endorsement of a definition, any more than the picture of the chess pieces in the lead of Chess constitutes a definition of chess or the picture of the white dwarf in the lead of White dwarf constitutes a definition of white dwarfs. The other maps are not definitive either. Spacepotato (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Those articles aren't comparable. Let's do a case study: imagine a world where there were various definitions of chess, some players say the rook wasn't a piece, some play with dragon-pieces, whatever, and there was a very volatile situation where many of the more mainstream definitions argued over which is the 'real' or 'common' chess, and this debate frequently got heated. Now imagine we create a disambig page at Chess (but a larger one, with a section for each definition, like this article) and next to each definition we put a photo of a set-up chessboard for that particular variety. And then imagine we put a photo of the no-rook five-dragon half-a-queen chessboard next to the lead. Can you imagine the kind of edit warring this could invoke? We know how petty edit wars can get. Sorry if I'm overcomplicating, but I am at a loss on how to explain the obvious reality of potentially explosive a situation your image creates. Just because I don't engage in edit warring and sock-puppetry doesn't mean that the next editor that disagrees won't. Nationalistic disputes are hard to resolve once started, and nationalism is particularly common in nations hovering between developing and developed status. The picture isn't required there, and its potential drawbacks far exceed any hypothetical benefit, will you be here to mediate a massive hundred-user edit war between nation A and nation B? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

1. This article is not a disambig page. A disambig page resolves ambiguity between different subjects which happen to be named by the same, or a similar, sequence of words. On the other hand, this article discusses a single concept, which, like many concepts, has no precise definition. None of the different maps and lists present in the article are definitive; they just give the reader information on the presence or absence of attributes which might cause a country to be considered as developed.
2. This article is already a venue for nationalism, as you can see if you check the edit history. There's scarcely a week that some editor doesn't decide to jump his (or her) country up in the rankings and has to be reverted. The only way to be sure of avoiding nationalistic edit wars though is to place Wikipedia into the bureaucratic ground state, which is undesirable. In fact, I believe the map to pose a relatively low risk of edit warring, compared to the lists—moving one's country up in the lists is easy as it only requires an edit, but recoloring one's country in the map takes more work than can be justified by a momentary access of national pride.

Spacepotato (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough in regards to the term 'disambig', I had misused the term accidentally but that sentence and that point sans that word still stands. And I wasn't talking about momentary flights of nationalistic pride, I was talking about organised groups coming in and changing the consensus. The point remains unaddressed, if there is even dispute over whether to include the top 30 or 40 results, can you imagine the havoc that could be wreaked considering you just placed an arbitrary combination of two arbitrary systems next to the lead where it is placed in a misleading way, leading one to believe that is the 'proper' definition? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is no argument: it's only conjecture that the map may cause an edit war, but the same possibility also exists with everything else. As for your other point, I have already addressed it above. Spacepotato (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it ironic you say I lack an argument when your point has primarily consisted of attempting by focusing on (or nitpicking, if you prefer) either my examples, or my accidental misuse of a term. If you wish, I will restate my problem. You have arbitrarily chosen two systems for defining the status, juxtaposed them (again, in a completely arbitrary way), and now are presenting it as the authoritative definition, placed next to the lead, mainly due to lack of any other organisation or group accepting it (for if they did, the map would be placed next to a section documenting their use of it, much like every single other map is). If there are problems with something like choosing the top 30 or 40 entries (per above), what makes you think your map couldn't be dismissed and removed as completely arbitrary? (which it most certainly is) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that the map is being presented as the authoritative definition is unfounded. Like the other maps, the map in the lead is illustrative, not definitive. Spacepotato (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The way it is presented very strongly suggests a definition. What exactly do you claim it illustrates? I saw no discussion of use of that particular standard of defining a developed country anywhere in the section it is placed against, it doesn't illustrate any aspect of the paragraph, except perhaps the term 'developed country' and thus is a definition. If you wish to include it I suggest you write a section on its use, like the other maps, and place it there, like the other maps. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It illustrates the term "developed country", obviously. Spacepotato (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

*bangs head against wall*. Yes. Exactly. And that is bad. Because it illustrates YOUR definition of the term 'developed country'. I will reiterate If you wish to include it I suggest you write a section on its use, like the other maps, and place it there, like the other maps. Any other placement, including the prominent place you have put your image is POV, especially for such a hotly contended term. Placing it in a position of prominence lends it credibility. Do you not understand this or are you just refusing to listen? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

1. It's not my definition. Neither I nor Wikipedia is claiming the map is definitive. The map clearly states in the caption that it's only the IMF's classification.
2. Placement in the lead does not imply endorsement by Wikipedia.

Spacepotato (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is the IMF's definition (it appears to be a combination of the UN and IMF definitions actually, but whatever), then kindly place it next to a section that details it, much like every other map. As for your second point - yes - well done, but I think that we've established that there is no official policy that anything within 12cm of the first word of the second sentence constitutes an endorsed definition, but claiming that a lone map placed next to the lead as opposed to all the other maps placed in their 'niche' section won't be (mis)interpreted as a definition (in your own words it is an illustration of the term 'developed country') is plain childish, I refuse to see you wouldn't recognise that. How many people, myself included, will immediately click on and scan the map before reading anything else? Also, what qualifies that particular map to be placed next to the lead? What's to stop me from swapping it with a map of the 'developed countries' published by the socialist party of southern Brazil? How would that be any less arbitrary? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 15:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

POV issue with Economist's QoL list

I've slapped a POV tag on this section. Who decided that only the top 30 countries in that list should be included? What's the criteria? Does the Economist say that the top 30 are the only developed countries on the list? Seems completely arbitrary to stop the list at 30. Why not 40 or 45 or 15? The list should be added in ful or be removed entirely. And why should this list be added in the first place? Who said quality of life equaled developed status? ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the section merits a POV tag, just because 30 countries are included instead of 40. The number or countries displayed can be changed, without making the content less or more partial in the assessments made. I don't think neutrality is in dispute here.

Now, regarding quality of life and development status; well, there is no universal definition for what a "developed country "is, and that is why the article offers the diverse definitions, that include different nomenclature ("high-income countries", "advanced economies" and the like). Many, if not all, of the factors out of which the quality of life index is built are factors that determine whether a country is developed. For example, WB's definition of "high-income" countries takes into account only GDP per capita at market exchange rates (calculated by the Atlas method). The quality-of-life index does take into account GDP per capita and more things.

--the Dúnadan 14:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the POV tag because the Top 30 is clearly the most sensible way of organizing the countries. Why? Because the last two countries are the United Kingdom and South Korea, both which are in the CIA and IMF list of advanced economies and are classified as High Income Nations by the World Bank and have a High HDI. The countries that go below that, however, do not satisfy this. In other words, countries who have never or appeared few times in the other lists cannot be included. More importantely, it will make the list very disorganized. You cannot go on forever with the Top 40, Top 50, Top 60...etc. Top 30 is the most accurate way of displaying the "Developed Country" list, the aim of this article. The other countries below this do not satisfy all the requirements of a developed countries. I hope this clears up the issue. Thanks Lakshmix (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, and I will add the tag back, because the list by itself doesn't anything about a country being developed. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, please read the comments above. You are not providing any arguments, but simply reverting. --the Dúnadan 05:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with removing the POV for the exact same reason as before. You can't put a list of hundred countries here, that would be absurd from an organizational point of view. I agree that there is no universally agreed list of developed countries but the current order is the best way to arrange the countries suitable for this article.Wondergirls (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Update Country Classification

The Map of High, Middle and Low Income Countries need to be updated. The July Classification has been released from the World Bank. [2]Pryde 01 (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Map

I think China and Russia should be blue. --87.14.81.245 (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the IMF and CIA, they are not advanced economies, neither are they "High Income Nation"s as defined by the World Bank.Lakshmix (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Americanisation?

Having read both the article and the above discussion, I do think you have got yourselves into a bit of a mess. It looks like some people can not see beyond the CIA and so every nation is looked at from a narrow American or western perspective. I would suggest that you guys do some reading and form a stronger set of definitions of development. As it stands, this wiki page lacks authority and while undue emphasise is given to what American spys think of the world, the article remains unusable. Herngong (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Developed Country

The CIA list cannot be used. It is out of date and incredibly biased. There are dozens of countries with over $10,000 p.a. GDP which aren't included. Plus Turkey as a developed country is absurd if South Korea and Slovenia aren't. We cannot continue to use this source, and I will work to remove it from this article, unless I can be convinced otherwise. Luke w (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The World Bank classifies 66 economies as High Income Economies

Among these economies, 49 are UN members, while 17 are not:

Aruba, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Channel Islands, Faroe Islands, French Polynesia, Greenland, Guam, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Macau, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, Virgin Islands.

Eliko (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

High income economies v. high income economies ineligible for lending

There seems to be some confusion surrounding the term High-income economies not eligible for lending programs. According to the World Bank's current classifications [3], 66 entities are high-income economies. This includes Taiwan, which is not listed in the main table, but mentioned here [4]. It also counts the Channel Islands as one entity.

Five of these entities, however, despite being high-income, are still eligible for lending programs. These are Antigua and Barbuda, Equatorial Guinea, the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, and Trinidad and Tobago. Removing these, and leaving aside Taiwan (not listed in the main table), leaves 60 entities which are both high income and ineligible for lending programs.

Spacepotato (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! I've updated the article accordingly to include Taiwan. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Quality-of-Life index cut-off criteria

User:Byeonggwan has been changing the cut-off criteria of 7.0 points to the Qualiy-of-Life list in the Summary table to 6.8. While the user has failed to explain in Talk why is there a need to change the 7.0 criteria to 6.8, it is a fact that lowering the amount of points to exactly 6.8 allow several developed or nearly developed countries to get included. Perhaps we should discuss here the appropriate cut-off criteria instead of edit warring? ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have no particular interest in the article, but since there are disagreement between JdeJ (talk · contribs), Wondergirls (talk · contribs), Lakshmix (talk · contribs) and Oda Mari (talk · contribs), this talk page would be better place for the dispute rather than edit warring. Regards.--Caspian blue 19:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Wondergirls (talk · contribs) and Lakshmix (talk · contribs) are two socks operated by the same user. Secondly, if you have no particular interest, then why revert to agree with the two socks? Havin said that, I'm more than happy to discuss any changes here although Wondergirls/Lakshmix usually doesn't care much about talk pages.JdeJ (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I disagree with your labeling of "vandalism" as you've insisted; Content dispute is not a vandalism. You have not said anything about the change except they're sockpuppet. That sounds hardly credible, also you've been behaving rude. Without filing SSP or RFCU and consequent confirmation by admins, your firm assertion constitutes "WP:Personal attack" and disruptively making WP:POINT. Between I suspect they're socks and they're sock! are totally different. So do not do that.--Caspian blue 20:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Weird, you've participated in the article along with South Korea and Seoul, just recently, and how do you know Wondergirls and Lakshmix's habits? --Caspian blue 20:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm able to read and form an opinion [5].JdeJ (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you believe that the guy over your hunch and you're free of making such personal attacks? (file SSP or RFCU since you're so convinced) Good practice. Keep edit warring or discussing, either way, the consequence is your choice.--Caspian blue 09:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

high-income but are eligible for lending programs? i went to the the country group page it said 65 countries.

i don't know why u guys emphasize this. world bank just says high income countries on the country group page. i went to the refernce page of this high-income but are eligible for lending programs, but it said nothing of leding programs it just said there are 65 high income countries.

so why put an emphasis on this eligible for lending program thing??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this user. I don't believe there is a lot of weight in the distinction between high-income countries eligible for lending programs, and high-income countries not eligible for lending programs. There are only 5 high-income countries which are eligible for lending programs and the criteria for determining these countries seems somewhat arbitrary; it is not necessarily based on GNI per capita. For example, South Korea, with a higher GNI per capita than Hungary, is eligible for lending programs, while Hungary is not. I believe we should do away with the distinction, both in the "High-income economies" section and in the summary table of developed countries. Ronline ✉ 08:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

i want answersHawkchoi09:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC) (talk) these people just keep editing the article without a consensus

if u want to put emphasis on this lending program thing, then we should emphasis on debt of the country. i know that most of the developed country has high debt. for example japan's public debt is 170% of gdp(2007) why don't u consider this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi (talk • contribs) 09:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If those 5 high-income countries are eligible for lending it's because the Bank does not consider them to be developed enough. That's a good reason to exclude them from a "develped country" list, don't you think? I mean, do you really think Equatorial Guinea is a developed country? ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

high income country doesn't necessarly means it is developed country. i am talking about high income country section. did i say high income country is developed country??? so why do u bring Equatorial Guinea up?? it is not related to the topicHawkchoi (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

can't u read?? i said i cannot find that phrase on the reference page, it just says there are 65 high income countries.

show me the page which seperates these countries to another countries. the page says there are 65 high income countries, but u took these 5 countries off the list and put those in to seperate section. i looked at the world bank country group page but it had no seprate section under high income country. it says there are 65 high income coutries. go and have a look. there is one section saying high income countries, doesn't say anything about this lending program. so why are 'u' emphasizing this thing?? worldbank sure isn't putting emphasis on that matterHawkchoi (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

and u didn't answer me.

what about all these developed countries with high percentage of debts?? why don't u mention that? japan's public debt is 170% of gdp, does this make japan not developed country??? iceland pretty much went bankrupt and asked imf for aid, is iceland not developed??? u r not acting objectively.

high income country doesn't necessarly means it is developed country. i am talking about high income country section. did i say high income country is developed country??? so why do u bring Equatorial Guinea up?? it is not related to the topic—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 December 2008

Okay, so when i go to this source it shows the type of the lending program not the eligibility (i.e. IBRD). How does this the category separates the countries with 'yes' eligibility from 'no'?--Kingj123 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It shows the lending programs the countries are benefitted from. ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the source Japan received IBRD as the lending program, hence abiding to your argument, it is considered not developed. --Kingj123 (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct. Look at the Excel file carefully. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

//I'm sorry that South Korea is not developed enough. Please leave your nationalism aside.// Do you have some kind of problem with South Korea?

First of all what is your actual reason for the need to differentiate between eligible for lending programs to not eligible for any lending programs? How does the world bank define that it is a way of categorizing a more developed country or a developing country? Even if it was, It is already stated in this article that "According to the United Nations definition some high income countries may also be developing countries. Thus, a high income country may be classified as either developed or developing" making this differentiation entirely irrelevant. It is just an attempt to chop down the list.Pds0101 (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Oh, I assume that the "..." represent 'No' eligibility, but where does it say that in the source? 2. How does the lending eligibility (if the category is true) affect the developness of the country, (is it explained in the source)? There is a source of innacuracy when the highly-advanced nations are dejected from the developed status 'just' because of the lending eligibility . 3. I think the 'lending category' is worth mentioning, especially in other related articles. However, the term, 'developed' itself is vague in nature with different sets of definition. Hence, it is a better idea to separate Highly advanced economies and Lending Programs apart, without merging them and create an inaccurate picture overal --Kingj123 (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC). --Kingj123 (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And just to add, most important of all to CieloEstrellado, did u even realise that this section was about high-income economies? It refers to countries with high GNI or high per capita. Did you even read this line at the beginning of the section? "High income economies" are defined by the World Bank as countries with a Gross National Income per capita of $11,456 or more". It is not about which countries take out loans from the world bank. This section was derived from the main article High income economy. If you are going to put foward your idea that a country is less developed because it takes out loans, I suggest you create a new article or section for it.Pds0101 (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope to finish the discussion is not clear. I heard comments such as CieloEstrellado, Oda Mari and JdeJ would be it. And almost all the participants in this discussion is Korean. If so, Korea can not be biased democratic results. w950712 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

If and the build-up person I CieloEstrellado and JdeJ, think that must maintain Oda Mari editing contents like that. w950712 (talk) UTC 13:37 —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

(down)--Kingj123 (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Commitment to Development Index

why don't we consider this as source of this topic? this research shows 22 developed rich countries

http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/faq check it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi (talk • contribs) 21:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

South Korea

For some reason, this article has been targeted extensively by South Korean IPs in the last days, many of which can of course be operated by the same user. First of all, let me point out that although these IPs mostly play a disruptive role, there are many good Korean contributors here as well, and I cannot agree with the user who reverted and simply blamed Korean nationalism. Nor can I agree with the user who did the opposite, reverted and blamed everybody else for being anti-Korean. Rather than edit-warring and name-calling, let's agree on which sources to use. At the moment, the table include six sources and the way these are defined, South Korea match three out of those six. Having said that, I find it a bit strange to include the "non-lending" part and if that was taken out of the fourth column, South Korea would move up to meeting four of the six definitions. In my way of understanding, that would seem logical. The way to get there, however, is to discuss the matter here and define the definitions, not reverting all the time. The way the sources are used now, it's obvious that South Korea meets three of the six definitions and those changing that are making themselves guilty of a form of vandalism since their edits contradicts the source. I for one would support them if they argued their case here instead, to drop the "non-lending" part. Once again, though, that discussion should take place here in order to achieve a consensus, not by a constant nationalistic edit-war by a few anonymous IPs.JdeJ (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not just editing without any justifications, however, the main problem is that my arguments are being disregarded frequently and that causes me some problems. Nationalism has no impact to the arguments and edits I made. Yes, we all have bias and perspectives in many aspects, and I acknowledge that to full extent. However, in reality, the edits and arguments themselves have nothing to nationalism, they're logically sound and rational. However, the fact is, the other users are using this 'nationalism' aspect in order to justify their arguments (see history) without a formal discussion or rational debate, and that is the problem here. I am not blaming them for being anti-Korean but being 'irrational' of reverting the contribution with 'nationalism' rhetoric to justify it. In addition "too bad Korea is not developed" is simply not good enough to disregard my contribution, the editors need to become more open minded for broader possibilities. Yes, some may view that Korea is not entirely developed and I understand that, and that is the whole purpose of this article; is to introudce varieties of ways to present with ideas that describe which countires are developed and which are not.

Hence, with regards to the status of South Korea, the lending program should be kept separate from the high-economy list. Since, neither did the editors and the sources describe how the lending eligibility affect the developness of the country, there is a source of innacuracy when the highly-advanced nations are dejected from the developed status 'just' because of the lending eligibility . As I said earlier, I think the 'lending category' is worth mentioning, especially in other related articles. However, the term, 'developed' itself is vague in nature with different sets of definition. Hence, it is a better idea to separate Highly advanced economies and Lending Programs apart, without merging them and create an inaccurate picture overal. --Kingj123 (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be clear that being a high-income country is not sufficient to be developed, as the category of high-income countries includes countries, such as Equatorial Guinea and Oman, which generally would not be called developed. On the World Bank's page we can read [6]:

Higher-income developing countries—some of which can borrow from commercial sources, but generally only at very high interest rates—receive loans from the IBRD. Countries that borrow from the IBRD have more time to repay than if they borrowed from a commercial bank...

So, according to this excerpt, countries which can borrow from the IBRD should be considered developing and not developed.

Spacepotato (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We should avoid statements "such as Equatorial Guinea and Oman, which generally would not be called developed" since we do not have the authority to make that claim. I agree with your claim that 'being a high-income country is not sufficient to be developed' but same thing for lending eligibility, it is not a significant factor that determines whether or not the countries are developed (i.e. North Korea; we have to acknowledge that there are other factors that affects the eligibility for loans). If both of the sources are not plausible and not relevant to this article, we can erase both of them. However, if we do want to include them it is important to present these data separately. Hence, it would be better if we address the high-income countries and the loan eligibility apart from each other since, both of them carry different information. --Kingj123 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It just seems unusual that under "High income economies" a seperation would be created just for 5 countries that are eligable for lend. I have stressed this before, but it is already defined that "According to the United Nations definition some high income countries may also be developing countries. Thus, a high income country may be classified as either developed or developing". But another "criteria" has suddenly been created which excludes only these 5 countries into another list. I had thought the inclusion of economies into this article was to present which countries had a "per capita of $11,456 or more" regardless of whether they are "developed or developing". Pds0101 (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, however there are some questions/ comments for all editors:

1. Yes, it is more than "just seems unsual." But, when we don't want to exclude these five countries from the list ; it is not because of the number since the number of countries should not have any influence on the separation issue, but the irrelevance of the "lending eligibility" on the "high-income" classification. It is like merging the CIA advance economies category with the developed nations category together. --Kingj123 (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC) If we really want to emphasize "lending eligibility" we can open a separate section.
2. Isn't the classification of "High income economies" from World Bank not the Untied Nations, they are two separate organizations with different set of definitions and guidelines.
3.How does the lending eligibility help classifing the developed or developing countries within the high income category? The 'lendging eligibility' and 'high income' are two separate topics with no correlation.
--Kingj123 (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more, there is no relevance of adding a "lending eligibility" on the "high-income" classification. //Isn't the classification of "High income economies" from World Bank not the Untied Nations, they are two separate organizations with different set of definitions and guidelines.// Thank you for pointing that out. I have also had a more insightful read into the cited sources in the article but can not find an exact definition which describes the correlation between 'lendging eligibility', 'high income' and developing countries. Moreover the very purpose of adding a list of countries to this article which have a "Gross National Income per capita of $11,456 or more" is to present those which can be considered to have a "high-income"; In this case, by the world bank. Pds0101 (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you both not read SpacePotato's clarifying message above (his latest on this section)? The correlation is clear. ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the message but the "message is not clear." It would be helpful if you explain the correlation. --Kingj123 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Koreans score very high on PISA reading comprehension tests. You shouldn't have a problem understanding what he's trying to say. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

However, I do have a problem. That is why I am asking you to understand and paraphrase the text he wrote.

1. I do not see an explanation of the "direct corelation." Until then, "high income" and "loan eligibility" are separate concepts, if they are to be merged the CIA advance economies category with the developed nations category should be merged together.

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) 06:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

//Five countries from the list above are eligible to receive loans from the IBRD, and they are classified by the World Bank as "higher-income developing countries// and before it was just //High-income economies not eligible for lending programs// Amused much? Where in any of the three cited sources to this statement classify these five countries as a "higher-income developing countries"? My question is did you CieloEstrellado even read the sources yourself because it seems you have simply gone as far to do some cherry picking from the excel table. You are still neglecting the arguement as to why this is even relevant to the "High income economies" section. I'm really sorry that you were upset because your country Chile could not cut into top 30 quality of life index, only one rank behind South Korea. But don't let your personal emotions provoke your actions. And to SpacePotato, there is no such group as the "HIE NL group". Pds0101 (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read citation 14 from the article, the first group "East Asia and Pacific (developing only: 23)" Does not include South Korea. No where does the world bank classifies South Korea as a "higher-income developing country". Pds0101 (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Three notes to everybody:

1. We should not confuse high-income and developed as the two concepts aren't identical. Please see below.
2. Leave the nationalism and the insults out of the discussion, please. Nobody benefits from comments like "I'm sorry that South Korea is not developed enough. Please leave your nationalism aside" or "I'm really sorry that you were upset because your country Chile could not cut into top 30 quality of life index"
3. What we should define here is not which countries to include in the article. We should define which definitions to use and then, and only then, can we see which countries that match.JdeJ (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Firsly I apologize if my comments have offended anyone. It was not my intention at all. This discussion had brought me to frustration, because my views were not being properly addressed or answered. I hope other users will have a closer read of the sources of this article for reference to their arguements. Pds0101 (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposition for High-income OECD members

Since there are particular users whom are SO enthusiastic of classiyfing World Bank high-income economies into "developed" and "developing", I have decided to put foward a replacement list called the "High-income OECD members"[[7]] created by the World bank. "Most OECD members are high-income economies or newly industrialized countries with a high HDI and are regarded as developed countries."

There are 27 countries under the "High-income OECD members" category and they are:

1. Australia
2. Austria
3. Belgium
4. Canada
5. Czech Republic
6. Denmark
7. Finland
8. France
9. Germany
10. Greece
11. Hungary
12. Iceland
13. Ireland
14. Italy
15. Japan
16. Korea, Rep
17. Luxembourg
18. Netherlands
19. New Zealand
20. Norway
21. Portugal
22. Slovak Republic
23. Spain
24. Sweden
25. Switzerland
26. United Kingdom
27. United States Pds0101 (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pds0101 about these countries if we talk about high-income. I'm a bit worried, though, that the discussion is focusing on the wrong thing. This is an article about developed countries, not high-income countries. Those are two different concepts and we should not make the mistake of mixing them with each other. While it is true that many high-income countries are developed and that many developed are high-income, there is no absolute correlation between these two. In other words, I'm doubtful to including high-income at all in this article, as there are already articles dealing with that concept.JdeJ (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ has made a good point. I have emphasized from my previous comments that the world bank itself does not define a direct correlation bewtween "high-income", "developed countries" and countries "eligiable for loans". What I am most concerned about is the attempt of an irrelevant categorizing of "high income economies" based on loans eligiabilty, which is not even strictly sourced by the world bank. This "high income economies" section has become somewhat very dubious, but now that it has been mentioned, it is probably not a bad idea to not include this in the article at all. Pds0101 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We agree 100%. If we include high-income, then I don't find lending policies relevant, as a high-income country is a high-income country and that's what the source said. But as I said before, and I'm glad too see Pds0101 agree upon, perhaps we should not include it at all. I'll be happy to hear what others think about the matter.JdeJ (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT. ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite the see the point of the WP:POINT in this case, would you care to elaborate?JdeJ (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

CieloEstrellado, You are constantly reverting the old list without regards to the discussions taking place. You are not constructively involving yourself or addressing the issues which are being highlighted by other users. Despite numerous times, you still have not responded to the questions being asked.

1. Why is there a need to emphasize a separate list for countries eligable for loans? How is it even relevant to "high income economies"?
2. I have had a very hard look through the sources provided, but where are the five listed countries grouped as "higher-income developing countries"?

Simply throwing a WP:POINT is not a good enough arguement. I strongly suggest you refrain yourself from further edits until a consesus has been reached. Pds0101 (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ, I am afraid to say this, but I am not too sure about keeping the edits made by CieloEstrellado. I would prefer the original 66 high income economies list until a consensus is reached, though I feel quite doubtful by the current pace of the discussion. There seems to be a poor response from other users who either insist on keeping or removing the five countries. I have not reverted your previous edit, though I would be much pleased to hear your opinion. Oh, and not to forget, happy new year!Pds0101 (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. A big part of the problem is the many users who just revert without bothering to comment here. Half of time, I honestly don't understand what their motives are. I won't revert any user who participates in the discussion myself, and I agree with you about the uncertainty of the situation. I'm off to celebrate now, so have a happy new year :) JdeJ (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we have reached the consensus as far as discussion is concerned since the opposition has no more arguments to address; and if there are more comments or disputes we can open up the discussion again. But, if the edit wars are continuing after this point, which is a probable situation, we need to seek for an administerator. Hence, now I will update this resolution on the article:

• "lending policies is relevant to the high-income classification"
• "No correlation"
• "Hence, lending policies are kept separate from World Bank high-income classification"

If these resolutions are violated without any notice or discussion, I will report the article on the notice board.WP:Vandalism

--Kingj123 (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your statement here. Can you explain clearly, in connected prose, what your argument is? The revision you reverted to is not correct. In the summary section, it lists 62 entities as part of the World Bank HIE group. This is incorrect as this group contains 66 entities. Spacepotato (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please change only the 62 entities back to 66 entities as you wish.

My argument is that the consensus is reached. However, if the edit wars are continuing after this point we need to seek for an administerator. --Kingj123 (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

However, if you are willing to participate the discussion, the proposal is to leave out the "lending eligibility from the high-income classification since, I do not see an explanation of the "direct corelation" between the lending eligibility and the high-income classification; if they are to be merged, the CIA advance economies category with the developed nations category should be merged together. 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. Thirdly, With North Korea as an example, there are other factors that affects the eligibility for loans, not just the developness of the country. Hence, in conclusion, lending policies are to be kept separate from World Bank high-income classification.

Please, feel free to refute these claims, but until then, the proposal is to be in effect.

Also, please avoid reverting the edits that seems "incorrect" from your perspective. --Kingj123 (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC) -

I don't see a consensus for your proposal. As explained above, it's clear that being in the HIE group does not reflect developed status. It may be that being in the HIE NL group more accurately reflects developed status than being in the HIE group. If so, we should use the HIE NL group and not the HIE group. Or it may be that, as User:JdeJ suggests, we should use neither group. In any case, we haven't heard from User:CieloEstrellado yet.

Also, do not edit the article into an incorrect state. A summary which states that the HIE group has 62 entities is incorrect. This is the case regardless of whether we decide to use the HIE NL group, the HIE group, or neither.

Spacepotato (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No one is restricted of editing anything merely because it seems "incorrect" from one's perception, and as I said earlier "please change only the 62 entities back to 66 entities as you wish" not others. For instance, please edit what you need to edit, but leave WB HIE alone until we finish this discussion, it is going on and on like a cycle. --Kingj123 (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there are several reasons why HIE NL simply cannot work (from my perspective of course). First, there is no explanation by a n approperiate authority (i.e. experts) from the source that claims that the HIE NL group would "nessesarily" be more accurate than the "HIE," but as you said, it may. Secondly, I still do not see an explanation of the "direct corelation" between the lending eligibility and the high-income classification. If the source states that the country A is developed, it is developed according to the source. If the source states that the country A is an high-income nation, it is an high-income nation according to the source. If the source states that the country A is eligible for an lending program, it is is eligible for an lending program according to the source. We as editors have no authority to mix up the classification and expect something accurate to come up That is the expert's job, not ours. --Kingj123 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have less problem with deleting both groups, as I said earlier, however we need to be aware of the fact that there is no correct and accuate definition of a "developed country" since the term is vague in nature. We as editors, have to throw in whatever (relevent) we can "separately" with approperate citations to provide as much resource we can. --Kingj123 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. After reviewing the situation, I think that neither the HIE or HIE NL groups are particularly reflective of developed status. According to [8], for example, many HIE countries would be classed as developing, and this would remain so even if we used the HIE NL group instead of the HIE group. So, it may be best to use neither group. However, it might also be useful to seek additional editorial input on this point. Keep in mind that many editors are celebrating the new year at this time and so are unavailable for comment. Spacepotato (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. However, the only problem I am having is that the source is not from the World Bank. --Kingj123 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also just like to remind everyone again that I and User:JdeJ have agreed that if the "High income economies" is to be included, then the eligibiligy for loans factor should be dropped as it is considered irrelevant. Either that, or the "High income economies" list could be dropped all together from the article. But we will supposidly further continue to discuss with other editors until a consensus is reached.Pds0101 (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that, if we were to include high-income economies as a component of determining whether a country is developed, eligibiligy for loans should not be taken into account. I disagree with including "High-income OECD countries"; there are some high-income economies which are not OECD members, such as Slovenia or Israel, and their lack of OECD membership does not influence either their income level or their status as developed countries. The category "high income economies" is one of six categories that may be suggestive of whether a country is developed. If this test is to have any meaning, it should be an income test, not a lending eligibility test. Why should it be an income test? Because high income is one (suggestive) way of ascertaining whether an economy is developed. Ronline ✉ 04:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my earlier proposition for a "High-income OECD countries" should be disregarded, as we haved discussed about the uncertain correlation between the concepts of "high income" and "developed". But thank you for your input. I also agree with your view. Pds0101 (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hence, we are down to two options, HIE without lending eligibility, or dropping them altogether. --Kingj123 (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well my vote goes to "HIE without lending eligibility", but I don't have a problem with just dropping it altogether either. What are the views of other editors?Pds0101 (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope this chart will keep track the opinions from all the users

HIE without lending eligibility

• Pds0101
• Kingj123 (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Ronline ✉ 12:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither HIE nor lending eligibilty

HIE with lending eligibility

---

Developed and high income are related concepts, but they are not identical. In an article on developed countries, why are we discussing high income countries? They could be mentioned at the end, as a related concept. But there is a pretty clear definition of developed county from the UN Statistics Division. Why are we trying to make up our own definition? --Kalbasa (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Developed countries and related concepts

Developed countries are countries that have been defined as such by various reliable sources. The sources and the definitions should be stated in the Definition section, near the top. For example, we could cite the UN Statistics Division and CIA World Factbook definitions.

All other lists and definitions are not definitions of developed countries. They are definitions of concepts that might be related to developed countries, but they are not definitions of developed countries themselves. Near the end of the article, we could have a section in which we mention all of the related concepts, such as HIE, QoL, etc. It's true that there might be a huge overlap between developed countries and HIE, but the two are not the same. We should not be mixing the two in the article. --Kalbasa (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How would you define a 'developed country?' --Kingj123 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, both UN Statistics Division and CIA World Factbook have definitions. We should simply present those definitions, and go from there. --Kalbasa (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kalbasa. Using high-income to define a developed country is simple in violation of WP:OR. While most high-income countries are developed countries and most developed countries are high-income countries, neither is perfectly correlated with the other. This far, I haven't seen one good reason why we're even discussing high-income in this context. Based on what is this included? I hope not to see any reason where users try to argue for why they think the two concepts are related, I'm interested in sourced and reliable content linking the two. In the absence of such sources, any inclusion of HIE violated OR and would have to be removed. I am of course not saying that we could never include high-income as a definition, definitely not, just that if we do so, we need to be able to source it and not just include it because we feel like it. For that reason, I'm not convinced that a straw poll on the matter is an ideal solution.JdeJ (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, the straw poll is just a brief overview. --Kingj123 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

But these are results which have been produced by editors who have contributed to this discussion and voted. It simply should not be disregarded. Everyone's opinions should be respected, and the majority favours the removal of "loaning eligabilty" at this point. To be honest, I agree with JdeJ and others that I am not entirely convinced, but by removing this we are returning this section to its previous state. We can further elaborate on the entire removal of HIE then. I would be happy to continue that. Pds0101 (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll

HIE without lending eligibility

• Pds0101 (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Kingj123 (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Ronline ✉ 12:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Hawkchoi —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC).

Neither HIE nor lending eligibilty

• Kalbasa
• JdeJ

HIE with lending eligibility

• W950712

Result

	HIE without Loan Eligibility	Deleting Both HIE and Loan ligibility	HIE with Loan Eligibility
Vote	4	2	1
Main Argument	The term 'developed' is not specific in nature, HIE is a valid method of interpretation even if it is not perfect	HIE is merely a related topic; no correlation between HIE and the term 'developed'	(see discussion above)
Counter Argument	High Income Economy affects the developness of the nation to certain extent	How is HIE a valid interpretation?

The main problem leading to Consensus

I think the 'definition' of the 'developed country' is what troubling us. The editors supporting HIE tend to appreciate sets of different interpretations as the collective meaning of the term 'developed'. Editors, who prefer dropping them altogther, want to abide to the set of the official definitions given by the certain sources and disregard the importance of HIE. So, what we should do is to decide on how we are going to define 'developed.' --Kingj123 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Our discussion began with the very relevance of lending eligability. we are also questioning about the validity of the entire HIE list. So if a straw poll is not convincing enough, what will it be? The poll suggests a brief idea from votes of editors who contributed to the issue. Like I said before, I don't have a problem with dropping it all together, but a clearer correlation needs to be addressed between "developed" and "high income". Pds0101 (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that in my understanding, a straw poll is never used to convince but to give an overview of opinions. I think the table presented by Kingj123 is very good in this regard. As I'm sure you are all aware, we already have the article High income economy as well as the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. In other words, this information is already available in other articles, and that is does not contribute to the understanding of a developed country. I doubt anyone would claim that Equatorial Guinea is more developed than Argentina or that Oman is more developed than Croatia. These two examples go to show that a country can be a high-income country without being particularly developed.JdeJ (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR. Are there verifiable published sources that say that developed = HIE? If so, let's cite them. If not, then what is the argument about? --Kalbasa (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

editing without any debate...

people are editing without any discussions..... look at the history page.... especially this oda mari creature is doing all the editing but has not participated in the debate.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi (talk • contribs) 01:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been cleaning up vandalism. The article is on my list and my reverts here were only removing unexplained/unsourced edits, edits without consensus and vandalism. I have no intention to edit the article. That is why I don't post anything on the talk page. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The table

At the moment, we are focusing our discussions on the high-income column in the table, so I would like to take the opportunity to point out that two other columns, in my opinion, should be removed under the same criteria. The IMF list of advanced economies and the CIA Factbook list of advanced economies should of course also go. The very fact that the CIA Factbook has one list for developed countries and one list for advanced economies should be enough reason for this; the list of developed countries is what we are interested in here, while the list of advanced economies is already covered in many other articles (see my post above) and, more importantly, does not increase our understanding of a developed country.JdeJ (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

doesn't the meaning of developed country equals to advanced economy? if we take those two list out, there will be hardly any information in this article.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi (talk • contribs) 09:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. The meaning is not the same. If it were, there would hardly be any point in the CIA Factbook having one list for advanced economies and one list for developed countries. The fact that these lists are different shows that the two concepts are different.JdeJ (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

could u please explain the difference between advanced economy and developed country for me? what is the definition of developed country anyway? i thought advanced economy= develeoped country....Hawkchoi (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

one more thing, if u type advanced ecnomy it goes to developed country article....

so if we take them out, we will have to create another article about advanced economy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi (talk • contribs) 11:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I could of course offer my own thoughts, but please keep in mind that what we are interested in is sourced material and I am no great expert :). I don't know precisely what definitions the CIA Factbook uses to distinguish between advanaced economies and developed countries, but there can be no doubt that they don't equate them since the lists are different. According to the CIA Factbook, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan are all advanced economies but they are not developed countries, while Malta, South Africa and Turkey are all developed countries but not advanced economies. On a personal level, we can agree or disagree with this. If you ask me, I say that Singapore and South Korea are at least as developed as South Africa, probably more. However, that is my personal opinion and it is not very important, the important thing is that we follow the definitions and sources that are available to us.JdeJ (talk) 12:27, 7 January 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)

Sorry for my irrelevant post. Oda Mari (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Oda Mari, that is pure speculation and I very much doubt anything such ambiguous as "the moral standard of the people" is included in any definitions. To take but one example, some people are sure to find the existence of same-sex marriages an indicator of a high-moral standard while others would come to the opposite conclusion and see it as low moral-standard. Similar scenarious could be produced for just about any "moral" question. Of course we could speculate, but I fear that will lead us astray from the topic. It is not very relevant what the condifitions are, just that we know the outcome.JdeJ (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I think we are moving off track here or going abit too far ahead. We initially began with questioning the very relevance of loan eligabilty, so lets please stick to that for now. I think from the discussions made, we either want it dropped or the high income section dropped all together. So PLEASE lets reach a formal consensus first on that issue. If other editors want to discuss advanced economies I would like to participate, but after this first.JdeJ, I'm sorry to disagree, but I personally think advanced economies is a more relevant concept to a developed countries article. There has been much discussion about this before, whether to include the CIA developed countries list because of its inclusion of Turkey and South Africa, but the exclusion of the east asian tigers(hong kong, singapore, south korea and taiwan).Not so much from a personal opinion, I think its quite clear that they are more developed than Turkey and South Africa at least by terms of HDI, quality of life, and market phase, economic freedom etc. But I would like to stress again, I wish we could make a decision on our initial discussion. Pds0101 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though I would love for us to reach an agreement, I must beg to differ on three accounts.

1. The arguments are the same, as we are basically dealing with three economic indicators and three indicators of development/quality of life. For that reason, I think it makes sense to discuss them together
2. As I've alreade stated, we have a well-respected source clearly making a difference between the "advanced economies" and the "developed countries". Regardless of our personal opinions, I don't think we can disregard this.
3. I must confess that I see no possibility whatsoever to include the CIA Advanced economies instead of the CIA developed countries. As this article is named Developed country, it is the latter that is of interest regardless of whether we agree with its content or not. I'd like to remind all contributors that it is our task to present relevant sources, not to interpret them.JdeJ (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still focused more towards dropping the "non-lending" part like we first dicussed. In response to your three accounts:

1. high income economies and advanced economies are clearly not along the "same" line of arguement. All advanced economies are high income economies, whereas its not vice versa. Let us consider that.
2. //we have a well-respected source// The CIA is not a development or economic organization, so perhaps one can question its validiy on this concept. Regardless, there may be other recent "developed countries lists" produced by other sources or from other countries. And my statement about the East Asian tigers being more developed than South africa or Turkey was not a personal opinion. This can be easily shown just from a HDI list which is based on a number of imporant factors. A HDI list is used to show "a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide." South Africa's HDI is currently ranked 121 while all the other tiger economies are in top 30. The extreme gap in the points and ranking is itself is strong indication of whether a country is more developed than another. Also, //Singapore and South Korea are at least as developed as South Africa// thats just outrageous JdeJ. What possible factor, or indicator or rank could you possibly even use to prove that South Africa and Turkey are more developed than South Korea and singapore? Or if they are even "developed countries"? Frankly, nothing. The only thing that indicates anything is the CIA list of "Developed countries". Do you understand why that CIA list is probably even less suggestive or inaccurate than the advanced economies list?
3. As editors we have a responsibily to use what is avilable to us to present the most relevant and useful information. A developed countries article with a single developed countries list just from the CIA would not be meaningful or informative enough on how a developed country or more developed country could be defined. (As you can see, When I have mentioned about South Africa and Turkey.) So if there was to be any other list to be removed from the article at this time apart other than HIE, It would be best to get rid of CIA developed countries list.

But I would not like to take advanced economies or developed countries list into a new arguement at this time. I still wish to reach a consensus on loan eligability. Pds0101 (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Also, //Singapore and South Korea are at least as developed as South Africa// thats just outrageous JdeJ. What possible factor, or indicator or rank could you possibly even use to prove that South Africa and Turkey are more developed than South Korea and singapore?" I'm afraid you read my post a bit too quickly, my fried :) If you read what I wrote, I said exactly the opposite, in my opinion South Korea and Singapore are much more developed than South Africa and possibly also Turkey. In other words, we agree on that.

1. Very true, but the fact remains that there are differences according to at least one source while we at least this far don't have any source equating them. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth (WP:SOURCE).
2. "The CIA is not a development or economic organization, so perhaps one can question its validiy on this concept." Then the same would apply for the CIA list of advanced economies as well, of course. But I cannot agree with you here, the CIA World Factbook is one of the most regularly cited references in all of Wikipedia. "Regardless, there may be other recent "developed countries lists" produced by other sources or from other countries." Absolutely, that is even likely. But then we need to find them and include them. Once again, sources are everything. "This can be easily shown just from a HDI list which is based on a number of imporant factors." Very true, and that is one of the reasons the table incluse HDI list and I don't think anyone has argued for it to be removed.
3. This is the point where I think you stray a bit from the line, when you claim that "So if there was to be any other list to be removed from the article at this time apart other than HIE, It would be best to get rid of CIA developed countries list." With all due respect, this seems to a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is an article on developed countries, and you would prefer to get rid of the only list that explicitly lists developed countries, rather than the lists which list other topics. Is there any reason to remove the CIA Developed Countries-list apart from us thinking that it's incorrect to call Turkey developed and not South Korea? In that case, such an argument has yet to be presented.

Once again I appeal to people to disregard national feelings and even personal opinions. This is an article on Developed countries and we cannot ignore the sources that exist on the topic. It is a fact that the one of the sources we currently rely on distinguishes between "developed countries" and "advanced economies". This is the article on developed countries, thus we should keep that list and get rid of the other. However, and as I already said, additional sources would be most welcome.JdeJ (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

//in my opinion South Korea and Singapore are much more developed than South Africa and possibly also Turkey. In other words, we agree on that.// There is no personal opinion or anything to agree on my friend. This is just a bold fact, and nearly the exact same thing can be said about Turkey as with South africa. It is not just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have personally never had a problem with the CIA list of "developed countries" before, neither have I bothered to actually question its validity, but I think as editors we can take that into greater consideration without just accepting what is granted; Same goes for "advanced economies". Can we ask with just what factors does the CIA define these countries as "developed"? Why have Turkey, South Africa and Malta been included, but not the East asian tigers? And with what "fact" does "developed countries" distinguish with "advanced economies". But like I said before I still do not agree that this is in line with the argument of "HIE" or "loan eligabilty", so I will stop further discussions on this topic for now. Pds0101 (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting HIE from the Summary Table=

I am thinking of taking the HIE down from the table for now, and delete more categories if nessesary in the future. We can also bring HIE back again when we need it. With regards to CIA, we need to keep in mind that this is a US government agency and the countries are not categorized according to economic or social development but simply how the U.S. government view these countries as; in addition, there are no sources, explanations or whatsoever that justify their categorization. Hence, the problem is that the CIA does not "nessesarily" portray a neutral or global perspective but merely a viewpoint from the U.S. government. --Kingj123 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think us editors have discussed the HIE for long enough, and there are no more contributers to this topic. It appears the majority does not want this list anyway, so we can sat it can be taken down for now. And of coarse we can take down more or add anything if needed in the future. Pds0101 (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I need help from other editors to help this out however.

but the poll shows that most of the editors want HIE without lending ability. so why take entire HIE list from this article?Hawkchoi (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't get something in on a poll if it violates Wikipedia's policies. WP:OR. Remove it. --Kalbasa (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because we have no verified link between HIE and developed countries.JdeJ (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

what are we waiting for??? i think it's time someone edit this article...Hawkchoi (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Although we should respect every editors views and votes, The loan eligability will be removed according to the poll results. If we wish, we can continue to elaborate on removing the entire HIE. Pds0101 (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we have elaborated on this issue for quite some time and there have been no strong support for why HIE should remain, as far as I can see. I will proceed to remove it in line with the arguments presented here.JdeJ (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kalbasa (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Very well, we can further discuss on it's removal. I hope other editors will also continue to present their views. Pds0101 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete article rewrite

If you would like to rewrite this article in accordance with all Wikipedia policies, including WP:OR, citing all sources, let's try to do it here: User:Kalbasa/Developed_country. Thank you... --Kalbasa (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We are not doing a complete rewrite here, we have just come down to removing the HIE at this time. That also means reconstructing the summary table. Pds0101 (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Little list

Here is the FTSE Group's little list for your consideration. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

FTSE Group Developed Country List

FTSEGroup, the leading international producer of financial indices, assigns the market status of countries as Developed, Emerging, Secondary Emerging or Frontier on the basis of their economic size, wealth, quality of markets and both depth and breadth of markets.

According to them the following countries are classified as "Developed Countries:"

• Australia	• Germany	• Japan	• South Korea
• Austria	• Greece	• Luxembourg	• Spain
• Belgium	• Hong Kong	• Netherlands	• Sweden
• Canada	• Iceland	• New Zealand	• Switzerland
• Denmark	• Ireland	• Norway	• United Kingdom
• Finland	• Israel	• Portugal	• United States
• France	• Italy	• Singapore

Wonderful. Thank you. Another definition of developed country. We now have three. This is what the article should be about, not about other concepts that may or may not be the same things as developed country. --Kalbasa (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What about MSCI list??? shouldn't it be considered too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi (talk • contribs) 16:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Let's include or at least consider all definitions of developed country. That's what this article is about. --Kalbasa (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The FTSE list should not be included as it classifies the development of stock markets (cf. developed market), not countries overall. Spacepotato (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose all developed countries have developed markets. --173.32.153.76 (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But this list was removed from the developed countries article a while ago. Being a developed market does not neccesarily mean that a country may be entirely "developed". I think there was a good reason why this was removed in the past. Pds0101 (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I've just checked the list. It is a list of countries with developed economies or developed financial markets. It sounds like this is another related concept that should be mentioned (and linked to) near the end of the article.--Kalbasa (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This list and the FTSE Groups definition on the "basis of their economic size, wealth, quality of markets and both depth and breadth of markets" is as good as any of the others, or better in my view! It is current and updated - unlike some of the others. Its bias is driven by market/business considerations and less by political bias. It is one many in Business and Economics would be comfortable with. Unless we have decided on a criteria, which I don't think we have it is clearly worthy of inclusion. What is the criteria for Development in the other lists? This list is refered to in the media when countries are put on it as being recognition of them becoming developed countries. It is under a section entitled lists of Lists of prosperous economies! I don't see the problem. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes, reviewing this again, you are quite right. Only if a country is "developed" enough should it be able to sustain a developed market. There is a strong correlation. This would probably be a better list to include than the OECD list (as I had unsuccessfully proposed before), because generally not all countries in the OECD can be regarded as developed by all aspects. Pds0101 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

but most members of OECD are developed countries just like most countries labeled as High Income Economies are developed(maybe not most of them but still). so i think OECD topic is relevant

so i think it is relevant topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.216.124.148 (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The criteria used by FTSE to classify markets as developed can be found in [9]. There are 21 criteria, but all relate to the quality of financial markets of the country and have nothing to say about the overall economy of the country. Criterion #21, for example, is the existence of a "developed derivatives market". Clearly having a developed derivatives market is neither necessary nor sufficient for the country to be well-off as a whole. Spacepotato (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure of your problem - the criteria they use relate to the development of markets - this might be a measure of development - and is as far as the FTSE and many business people are concerned. "The following countries are classified by FTSE as developed countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium/Luxembourg, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States." This is a list which explicitly states this is a list of "developed countries". Which country on this list do you consider to be not developed? Which country do you think should be on the list of developed countries which is not on it? My own preference would be to argue that development is a process and is multidimensional which implies we may need many measures and to have cut-offs is not really very useful - but people do use them and so we should both use common sense and report what authoritative sources say. The FTSE Group is an authoritative source. Reporting this list and raising problems with it would seem to be to have been more appropriate than deleting it. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

add both FTSE and MSCI list. i think they are relevant. if high income countries list is relevant than i don't see why developed market list is irrelevant. plus summary table looks horrible. fill up the rest of the blanks with those list.118.216.124.153 (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We should delete the high-income countries list as well, as pointed out by a number of editors above. Spacepotato (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be good if we added both add both FTSE and MSCI lists. I am still very dubious about the CIA list of developed countries? I am having some trouble understanding its definition or how the listed countries have been factored as "developed". There are concerningly certain countries there which just from common sense makes me wonder how they were ever even included. Could another editor please elaborate. I am sure there is a reason. Pds0101 (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A view of some possible problems with the article:

In the opening paragraph the definition "categorize countries that have achieved a high level of industrialization in which the tertiary and quaternary sectors of industry dominate" is not really used in any of the subsequent lists. Also it is, I think, a bit outdated as I think some of the newly industrialising countries are more dominated by industry (share of output or employment) than some of the more developed countries. Industry is perhaps the wrong word to use here - perhaps just "tertiary and quaternary sectors".

Paragraph two also equates developed country with economic development. But later bits imply it invloves other things - the specification of which is not always clear.

The Synonyms section list alleged synonyms - are they synonyms? This would seem debatable! Some other comments: I think the ambiguity and contentious nature of some of definitions/lists should be stressed and perhaps we need some greater discussion of what is meant by development - is it only economic - mainly economic - or what other criteria are being used? UN Definition seems very dated (outdated). CIA developed country list - list outdated and based on one nation's geopolitical considerations Other perhaps more reliable/reasonable sources than CIA but also have their own problems are: - OECD membership - often referred to as "Developed countries' club" - FTSE Group Developed Countries defined by market development.

Possibly if the article started with a loose definition of developed country plus a recognition of the ambiguous /contentious nature of concept. This might be followed by a list of the different measures proposed and arguments for and against each - but perhaps the lists themselves should be on pages of their own.

These are just some thoughts - after looking through the article and much of the long history of this page. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

i think CIA developed country list is wierd. CIA has advanced economy list and developed country list. what is the difference?

what is developed country according to CIA?? anyways i think we need to talk about thisHawkchoi (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have mdae some modifications in the light of the above comments. I think we could perhaps have a more substantial introduction to all our lists. Perhaps with a space for criticisms of each them. Perhaps reintroducing the FTSE Group list with pointers as to its limitations (Msrasnw (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

A CIA Developed Country list problem

In addition to other problems with this list. Our quote reads "although four OECD countries and South Africa have figures well under $10,000" While this was true a long time ago it has not been true for some time. Even South Africa is now nearly 10,000 dollars/head in some measures. The quote is dated 2008. But the information is really from far longer ago. Somehow our reporting of this should indicate the real date and should reflect when this claim was valid or we have to change something. I think this sort of thing brings Wikipedia - and the CIA - into disrepute. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

people are not participating in the discussion..... just edit the article, then people will participateHawkchoi (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made notes of the problems (Msrasnw (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

Problem with UN defintion

Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use

Should we not have reference to the UN's note that "The designations "developed" and developing" are intended for statistical convenience and do not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached by a particular country or area in the development process."

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm

We seem to be using their reference to do what they said we shouldn't do with it (Msrasnw (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

OECD - the "developed country club"

I am thinking of adding the members of OECD as one of the lists as some use this as "the developed county club" - and the CIA uses this plus slightly strangely Bermuda, Israel, South Africa, and the European ministates (Msrasnw (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

it looks like turkey and poland is high income oecd country. they are over $11000 USD.118.216.124.196 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary

Legend
CIA DCs	CIA's The World Factbook, Developed countries	CIA AE	CIA's The World Factbook, Advanced economies
IMF AE	International Monetary Fund, Advanced economies	QoL≥7	Quality-of-life index at or above 7.0
HDI≥0.9	Human Development Index at or above 0.9

imf advanced economy list....

in this article, it states there are 32 countries in advanced economy list. but i have found out there are only 31 countries in the list

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weoselco.aspx?g=110&sg=All+countries+%2f+Advanced+economies

it looks like san marino is not in the list... was it in the list but taken out or was it never in the list??

i think change is needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete article rewrite

If you would like to rewrite this article in accordance with all Wikipedia policies, including WP:OR, citing all sources, let's try to do it here: User:Kalbasa/Developed_country. Thank you... --Kalbasa (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Prosperous Economies List

Renamed and justified as Other lists of Developed Countries.

Plan to add problems/advantages with each of the lists given that there is no universally accepted guideline for which country may or may not be considered developed, many different institutions have created lists which are sometimes refered to when people are discussing developed countries. AND THAT the criteria for using these list and for countries inclusion on these lists is often not properly spelt out and several of these lists are out dated. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

FTSE Group again

I would like to put this under Other lists of Developed Countries have noted

While there is no universally accepted guideline for which country may or may not be considered developed, many different institutions have created lists which are sometimes refered to when people are discussing developed countries. .... The FTSE Group assigns countries to developed country status on the basis of the development of their markets.

=== FTSE Group Developed Country List===

FTSEGroup, the leading international producer of financial indices, assigns the market status of countries as Developed, Emerging, Secondary Emerging or Frontier on the basis of their

• economic size,
• wealth,
• quality of markets,
• depth of markets,
• breadth of markets.

According to them the following countries are classified as "Developed Countries:"

• Australia	• Germany	• Japan	• South Korea
• Austria	• Greece	• Luxembourg	• Spain
• Belgium	• Hong Kong	• Netherlands	• Sweden
• Canada	• Iceland	• New Zealand	• Switzerland
• Denmark	• Ireland	• Norway	• United Kingdom
• Finland	• Israel	• Portugal	• United States
• France	• Italy	• Singapore

The editor Spacepotato doesn't like it and keeps deleting it, without, in my view properly, discussing it. I am not sure why he does this. The FTSE groups classification is reported as being on the basis of "economic size, wealth, quality of markets, depth of markets, breadth of markets" - 21 criteria related to markets are used and then if all our passed the market is described as being a developed market. Countries with developed markets are then described as developed countries. People use this list and talk about countries on it as having been recognised as becoming developed countries. (S Korea wins developed-country status By Sundeep Tucker, Financial Times, September 18 2008 00:32 "South Korea has been promoted to developed-country status by FTSE Group") This is a list which explicitly states this is a list of "developed countries". The FTSE Group seems to me an authoritative source. Reporting this list and raising problems with it - it doesn't mention deal with other aspects of development - education, health, freedom (?) would seem to be to have been more appropriate than deleting it. I think I shouldn't just put it back.

Could some other editors discuss this? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

Needed to look at the notes, so I added the references thing. Anyway, I looked at the thing, and there's one slight problem. It says Developed market, not country. A developed market is not the same as a developed country. Markets aren't the same are a whole country. A market is part of a country, but a country has much more then a market. It needs to have a developed education, health, etc. So for the FTSE group, I would say keep it out. Hope this helps. Deavenger (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before, the FTSE list rates the development status of financial markets (cf. developed market) and does not classify the development status of the country overall. The two concepts (developed market and developed country) have nothing to do with each other. Spacepotato (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think the FTSE should be in developed market, not in developed country list. Deavenger (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It says here that FTSE defines these as developed countries http://www.ftse.com/Research_and_Publications/FTSE_Glossary.jsp "The follow countries are classified by FTSE as developed countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium/Luxembourg, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States." (Msrasnw (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

Okay. We should use that instead of the developed markets list. But look around the site to see if they have what they believe are the criteria for developed countries. Deavenger (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Deavenger. The FTSE Group, and others who use their list, seems to me to be defining developed countries as those with developed markets! Perhaps because they view them as being highly correlated - indeed the list they produce seems to have no odd countries on it unlike other lists (the CIA list.) I.e. all the countries on it are generally regarded as being developed. RoKorea is the only one on this list that is not on the CIA list but the CIA list has not been updated for some time. The postioning of Korea on this list and the media fuss - S Korea wins developed-country status By Sundeep Tucker, Financial Times, September 18 2008 00:32 "South Korea has been promoted to developed-country status by FTSE Group" would seem to justify including the list. Some pertinent questions - and my answers are:

• • • Is the FTSE Group and/or the Financial Times, an authoriative source? YES
    • Do they and others talk about countries with developed markets defined by them as being developed countries? YES
    • Does their list look sensible as a list of developed countries? YES

Which of these is contentious? (Msrasnw (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

Look at the list of developed countries and developed markets. On the FTSE website, are either South Korea, Israel, orIceland counted as developed countries? No. If South Korea is going to be added, look on the FTSE website for some note of them adding South Korea.

Is the FTSE Group an authoriative source, yes. Is the Financial times, No. A big NO there. They report the news, and they don't do any classification like the FTSE, CIA, IMF, World Bank does. SInce the author used FTSE, just use the FTSE site instead. If he says that South Korea is being promoted, and it's true, it would be on the FTSE website. So use that instead. But seeing how on FTSE, developed markets =/= developed countries (according to their list, Israel, Iceland, nor S. Korea are on the developed countries list), we shouldn't put the developed markets list saying it's the FTSE developed country list, because they're obviously not the same. If we put up the developed market list and say it's the developed country list (though it's not, thanks to Iceland and Israel) without putting another source from the website saying something like "oh hey, by the way, for our site, developed countries = developed markets." it is considered WP:OR Deavenger (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should not add FTSE list in this article. becuase we already have developed markets article. i don't really know whether it is related topic or not but i don't think it is necessary118.216.124.131 (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)