This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The official classification of "advanced countries" is originally made by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).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)
Quick Links for MedCab Case: Cases/2007-06-25 Developed country | ||
Developed country • Andrew pmk • Eliko • 74.12.182.133 • Coloane |
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)
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)
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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 explanation 213.5.211.252 16:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Some diverse references would be nice.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 ( talk) 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
Scandinavian countries, Japan, Canada, Australia? Could this article talk about them? -- Chargin' Chuck ( talk) 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
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...
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think China and Russia should be blue. -- 87.14.81.245 ( talk) 20:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 matter Hawkchoi ( talk) 17:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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...
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)
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 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)
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)
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:
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:
WP:POINT. ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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) -
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'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)
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
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 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)
Don't worry, the straw poll is just a brief overview. -- Kingj123 ( talk) 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
HIE without lending eligibility
Neither HIE nor lending eligibilty
HIE with lending eligibility
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? |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Okay, I need help from other editors to help this out however.
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)
Here is the FTSE Group's little list for your consideration. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC))
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 [2]:"
• Australia | • Germany | • Japan | • South Korea [3] |
• Austria | • Greece | • Luxembourg [4] | • Spain |
• Belgium [4] | • Hong Kong | • Netherlands | • Sweden |
• Canada | • Iceland | • New Zealand | • Switzerland |
• Denmark | • Ireland | • Norway | • United Kingdom |
• Finland | • Israel | • Portugal | • United States |
• France | • Italy | • Singapore |
I suppose all developed countries have developed markets. -- 173.32.153.76 ( talk) 02:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
so i think it is relevant topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.216.124.148 ( talk) 07:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
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))
what is developed country according to CIA?? anyways i think we need to talk about this Hawkchoi ( talk) 10:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
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))
I have made notes of the problems ( Msrasnw ( talk) 16:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC))
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))
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))
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 [1] |
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
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)
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)
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))
I would like to put this under Other lists of Developed Countries have noted
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
According to them the following countries are classified as "Developed Countries [3]:"
• Australia | • Germany | • Japan | • South Korea [4] |
• Austria | • Greece | • Luxembourg [5] | • Spain |
• Belgium [5] | • 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))
Mentioning the FTSE group's list
FTSE Restored a mentioning of FTSE group's Developed Country list and link to Developed Markets, even if am not allowed to put the list itself in, because they have updated the glossary defintion which addressed albeit only partially the problem adressed by one of the editors critical of including even a mentioning of this list. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 19:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
Removed link to International Power - Power in international relations as unrelated concept. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 23:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC))
I would like to suggest we remove the CIA's advanced economies list as my reading of it is that the CIA just took an old version of the IMF list and added some small countries which it thought were missing. I would take their approach to imply that they accepted the IMF's approach and so we could just go with the IMF's list which has been updated more recently. I don't see that the CIA list adds much. Perhaps a note to the IMF list saying that the CIA suggested adding seven smaller countries to an old version of the list. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 23:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
According to the Chinese naming convention, "Republic of China" should be used when it is used in the sense of a country. An anonymous IP users constantly changes the country to "Taiwan", which violates the convention.-- pyl ( talk) 06:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Put back the introductory note to the summary table. I think we need to justify, explain and warn users about this table if we are including it. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 13:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
Since the CIA list was undeleted after I deleted it. I'll try merging it with the IMF list instead. I think the brief notes to it by the CIA indicate it is not a list they have come up with. They are just reporting the IMF list and then making a presumption about what they percieve as an oversight. And then the IMF made some changes to their list which, were the CIA to update their material I guess they would include. I think the new version seems to cover all points. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) is a program of the United States Government which allows citizens of specific countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for up to 90 days without having to obtain a visa. All countries participating in the program are high-income economies with a high HDI and are regarded as developed countries.
As of 31 December 2008, 35 countries were designated as VWP participants:
Europe (29)
Asia (4)
Oceania (2)
-- Tnaniua ( talk) 09:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Where does the figure 7.0 come from in the summary. Nonone except us in wikipedia is implying the UK is not a developed country? Is this unwise ( Msrasnw ( talk) 10:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC))
Shouldn't our summary table have the top 30 QoL countries if it is a summary ( Msrasnw ( talk) 00:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
I have a problem with the quality of life index, no where in the article does it say that the countries with the top quality of life are considered developed country. Nor does that or any article I see say that there is a link between the quality of life for a country in determining if that country is a developed country. To put that list in without any reliable source saying otherwise is SYN and OR. Deavenger ( talk) 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the big problem is there is no one accepted definition of what development means. This is what makes it interesting! It is perhaps intrinsically multidimensional and how far along each dimension one must be before one could say a country was developed, even in that one dimension - is also debatable. I think I like the hotchpotch of lists that has emerged is nice - it is I think a shame that other lists like the FTSE list and the slightly strange Visa list which add extra nuances to the meaning of development, aren't allowed on by those policing the page. Anyway the hotchpotch we have seems much better than using just one list - or even just a few. The CIA list is I think particularly problematic. There is no explanation of why countries are viewed as developed - for example - South Africa! All the lists are flawed. I think there should be more explanation on the page of the different views and the debate this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a glossary. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 01:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
The Economist has in a study examined the state of democracy in 167 countries and attempted to quantify this with an Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy which focused on five general categories; electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. According to Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index 2008 Sweden scored a total of 9.88 on a scale from zero to ten, which was the highest result, while North Korea scored the lowest with 0.86. [a 1] The countries are categorized into "Full Democracies", "Flawed Democracies", "Hybrid Regimes" (all considered democracies), and "Authoritarian Regimes" (considered dictatorial).
2008 ranking
No. | Location | Index | Category |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Sweden | 9.88 | Full democracy |
2 | Norway | 9.68 | Full democracy |
3 | Iceland | 9.65 | Full democracy |
4 | Netherlands | 9.53 | Full democracy |
5 | Denmark | 9.52 | Full democracy |
6 | Finland | 9.25 | Full democracy |
7 | New Zealand | 9.19 | Full democracy |
8 | Switzerland | 9.15 | Full democracy |
9 | Luxembourg | 9.10 | Full democracy |
10 | Australia | 9.09 | Full democracy |
11 | Canada | 9.07 | Full democracy |
12 | Ireland | 9.01 | Full democracy |
13 | Germany | 8.82 | Full democracy |
14 | Austria | 8.49 | Full democracy |
15 | Spain | 8.45 | Full democracy |
16 | Malta | 8.39 | Full democracy |
17 | Japan | 8.25 | Full democracy |
18 | United States | 8.22 | Full democracy |
19 | Czech Republic | 8.19 | Full democracy |
20 | Belgium | 8.16 | Full democracy |
21 | United Kingdom | 8.15 | Full democracy |
22 | Greece | 8.13 | Full democracy |
23 | Uruguay | 8.08 | Full democracy |
24 | France | 8.07 | Full democracy |
25 | Portugal | 8.05 | Full democracy |
26 | Mauritius | 8.04 | Full democracy |
27 | Costa Rica | 8.04 | Full democracy |
28 | South Korea | 8.01 | Full democracy |
29 | Italy | 7.98 | Flawed democracy |
30 | Slovenia | 7.96 | Flawed democracy |
I'd like add this one as well. -- Tnaniua ( talk) 10:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this would be a nice addition to the page - but it would require justifying on the page. That is there should be some sources to indicate that democracy is some measure of, or contribution to developmental status. Sen's Development as freedom - might be useful in this regard. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 01:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
according to CIA, less developed countries (LDCs) are
the bottom group in the hierarchy of developed countries (DCs), former USSR/Eastern Europe (former USSR/EE), and less developed countries (LDCs); mainly countries and dependent areas with low levels of output, living standards, and technology; per capita GDPs are generally below $5,000 and often less than $1,500; however, the group also includes a number of countries with high per capita incomes, areas of advanced technology, and rapid rates of growth; includes the advanced developing countries, developing countries, Four Dragons (Four Tigers), least developed countries (LLDCs), low-income countries, middle-income countries, newly industrializing economies (NIEs), the South, Third World, underdeveloped countries, undeveloped countries; the 172 LDCs are: Afghanistan, Algeria, American Samoa, Angola, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Cayman Islands, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Colombia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Falkland Islands, Fiji, French Guiana, French Polynesia, Gabon, The Gambia, Gaza Strip, Ghana, Gibraltar, Greenland, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guam, Guatemala, Guernsey, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Isle of Man, Jamaica, Jersey, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, North Korea, South Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Macau, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Martinique, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Montserrat, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Oman, Palau, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Pitcairn Islands, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Reunion, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tokelau, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, UAE, Uganda, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Virgin Islands, Wallis and Futuna, West Bank, Western Sahara, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe;
-I am thinking of removeing CIA list.
is really old source. today is 6/3/09.
It's not only my opinion.
Now, Singapore per capita GDPs is over 50000. Singapore is absolutely more developed than South Africa.--
Tnaniua (
talk)
06:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the removal of the CIA list is quite a good idea - I think the factbook's status is really like a rather poorly updated encyclopedia rather than a proper source like the IMF, WB, UN or OECD. I don't think they are claiming to be collecting data - or even catagorize countries - rather they seem to claim to be reporting other (eg the IMFs) lists but in a dated way. However some of the text needs tidying up to reflect this. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC))
I agree. It was wrong placing it there at the first place. Its completely biased and misleading. Clearly countries such as South Africa or Turkey are not developed countries. Not by GDP per capita, HDI or quality of life standards. I am still trying to figure out why CIA would consider such countries as developed! FDAU ( talk) 22:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
someone screwed it up. For example, Iran has a <.9 HDI index
someone screwed it up. For example, Iran has a <.9 HDI index —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.234.37 ( talk) 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The CIA is the organization that has originally coined the term "Developed country" and is currently the only major organization in the world that uses this term (the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD are using terms such as "High-income country" (which is something else: for instance Qatar is a "high income country" but not a "developed country" because lacks a developed industrial base, the education and civil rights level of women is low, democracy and freedoms are not fully developed, etc...) and "Quality of life index", which is also something else.
If this article's name shall remain as " Developed country", then the CIA "Developed country list" must remain. If you want, you can create separate articles for "High income country" and "Quality of life index" (not all "high-income" countries are "developed" countries: e.g. Qatar, Brunei, etc...)
Do not remove the CIA list just because your beloved country is not in it. You may argue that the CIA's list has its flaws, that South Korea and Russia must also be in it, but the duty of Wikipedia is to "list facts by external sources" - not to make "original research". Whether you like it, or not. 85.153.27.4 ( talk) 09:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The CIA website says nothing about its list being based on GDP per capita (if that was the case, Qatar and Kuwait would be developed countries, wouldn't they? And South Africa wouldn't be in the CIA's list.)
Here's what the CIA says:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html
"the top group in the hierarchy of developed countries (DCs), former USSR/Eastern Europe (former USSR/EE), and less developed countries (LDCs); includes the market-oriented economies of the mainly democratic nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Bermuda, Israel, South Africa, and the European ministates; also known as the First World, high-income countries, the North, industrial countries; generally have a per capita GDP in excess of $10,000 although four OECD countries and South Africa have figures well under $10,000 and two of the excluded OPEC countries have figures of more than $10,000; the 34 DCs are: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, NZ, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, US; note - similar to the new International Monetary Fund (IMF) term "advanced economies" that adds Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan but drops Malta, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey"
^ Anything other than the official description in the CIA's website is "original research". 78.40.231.225 ( talk) 06:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2008 ranking
No. | Location | Index | Category |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Sweden | 9.88 | Full democracy |
2 | Norway | 9.68 | Full democracy |
3 | Iceland | 9.65 | Full democracy |
4 | Netherlands | 9.53 | Full democracy |
5 | Denmark | 9.52 | Full democracy |
6 | Finland | 9.25 | Full democracy |
7 | New Zealand | 9.19 | Full democracy |
8 | Switzerland | 9.15 | Full democracy |
9 | Luxembourg | 9.10 | Full democracy |
10 | Australia | 9.09 | Full democracy |
11 | Canada | 9.07 | Full democracy |
12 | Ireland | 9.01 | Full democracy |
13 | Germany | 8.82 | Full democracy |
14 | Austria | 8.49 | Full democracy |
15 | Spain | 8.45 | Full democracy |
16 | Malta | 8.39 | Full democracy |
17 | Japan | 8.25 | Full democracy |
18 | United States | 8.22 | Full democracy |
19 | Czech Republic | 8.19 | Full democracy |
20 | Belgium | 8.16 | Full democracy |
21 | United Kingdom | 8.15 | Full democracy |
22 | Greece | 8.13 | Full democracy |
23 | Uruguay | 8.08 | Full democracy |
24 | France | 8.07 | Full democracy |
25 | Portugal | 8.05 | Full democracy |
26 | Mauritius | 8.04 | Full democracy |
27 | Costa Rica | 8.04 | Full democracy |
28 | South Korea | 8.01 | Full democracy |
29 | Italy | 7.98 | Flawed democracy |
30 | Slovenia | 7.96 | Flawed democracy |
Turkey is not OECD member. It's not democracy and no highly developed military industries. Denel? lol see Acer Inc. Samsung. -- Tnaniua ( talk) 07:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html. and It's 1990s source. today is 14/3/9.-- Tnaniua ( talk) 07:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It based on GDP per capita and today, Singapore GDP per capita is over 50,000.-- Tnaniua ( talk) 08:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
the bottom group in the hierarchy of developed countries (DCs), former USSR/Eastern Europe (former USSR/EE), and less developed countries (LDCs); mainly countries and dependent areas with low levels of output, living standards, and technology; per capita GDPs are generally below $5,000 and often less than $1,500; however, the group also includes a number of countries with high per capita incomes, areas of advanced technology, and rapid rates of growth; includes the advanced developing countries, developing countries, Four Dragons (Four Tigers), least developed countries (LLDCs), low-income countries, middle-income countries, newly industrializing economies (NIEs), the South, Third World, underdeveloped countries, undeveloped countries; the 172 LDCs are: Afghanistan, Algeria, American Samoa, Angola, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Cayman Islands, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Colombia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Falkland Islands, Fiji, French Guiana, French Polynesia, Gabon, The Gambia, Gaza Strip, Ghana, Gibraltar, Greenland, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guam, Guatemala, Guernsey, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Isle of Man, Jamaica, Jersey, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, North Korea, South Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Macau, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Martinique, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Montserrat, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Oman, Palau, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Pitcairn Islands, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Reunion, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tokelau, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, UAE, Uganda, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Virgin Islands, Wallis and Futuna, West Bank, Western Sahara, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe;
- CIA list is really old source today is 14/3/09.
for example, according to CIA, Singapore GDP per capita is under $5,000 but today, Singapore GDP per capita is over $50,000. --
Tnaniua (
talk)
08:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think given the nature of the controversy of the CIA DC list it is worth mentioning in problems in the text. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 12:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
Why is the outdated information being retained and if it's for historical archival value, shouldn't it have a separate article, rather than the confusion (misinformation) it's provoking here? I can see there's been a bit of a to-do over this article, so if I've missed the point of its inclusion, apologies. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! ( talk) 12:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The CIA developed country list is included not because of the accuracy of the information but because some esatblished users insist on it. I think it is either to do with some view about the reputability of the CIA, or their preference for a list that includes some particular countries and excludes others. The argument seems to me to be:
I think there is no point deleting it and then having it restored again and again and again. It appears to me its inclusion is anachronistic but perhaps this is the sort of thing that makes wikipedia a bit interesting. The promblem comes when people start to use Wikipedia uncritically and start to accept the South Africa for example is a developed country and that South Korea is not.
Both Turkey and South Africa were I think on the CIAs list as part of a political agenda. Turkey's mebership of the OECD and South Africa - were both part of the CIAs need for an allies in the fight against the communism. Wrt South Africa some argue that it was in part a Developed Country because the whites there lived a life style equivalent to a developed country - but now when there is a tendancy to treat all people more equally - hardly anyone would buy in to that view.
Any student of development knows that by any objective measures South Africa and Turkey are less developed than South Korea.
There seems to be no way to debate this properly as many editors seem to act as if their view is so obviously correct that there need be no discussion. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 14:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
I think if we are including this list which has been the source of massive argument then the nature of the a problems should be addressed in the article. Which of the specific problems indicated are not worthy of being mentioned and why? Factual problems and inconsistencies with the information are, in my view, suitable contents for an encylopedia entry which this is. Are we not allowed to mention which bits of our articles are the cause of debate among editors. Which bits are : point of view?( Msrasnw ( talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
I have removed some of the, "outdated"'s and other language to make it appear less critical. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
No, we are not allowed to mention how some list is causing controversy among editors. In an encyclopedia you never see anything like that. In wikipedia, you do points according to the sources, a reliable source without it being OR or SYN. And we can't add POV like "which it isn't", and "This is possibly problematic as many high income countries, using its definition of greater than $10,000, are not on this list, many of the ministates are not generally refered to as industrial countries, and a list that includes South Africa would not normally be refered to as the North." The second sentence is complete analysis, which you need a source for as it's required on wikipedia. Even if it might be true, we still can't put these points without a source. Deavenger ( talk) 20:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the mention of the controversial nature of the list and just mention the lists oddity in relation to our other lists as indicated by our summary table. My reading of the CIAs explanation is that their criteria is OECD countries plus Bermuda, Israel, South Africa, and the European ministates minus Mexico. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 21:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
wikipedia should show facts yes. cia list is outdated and old but it shows their perspective of developed country plus cia has advanced economy list too so i think their definition of developed country and advanced economy is different the definition of developed country doenst only mean wealthy country it could mean regional power or somethinh... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
see https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html Developed countries = high-income countries; generally have a per capita GDP in excess of $10,000. -- Tnaniua ( talk) 07:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I always believed that a good encyclopedia is the one that can filter bad info and present the reader with the correct and credible information. An encyclopedia is NOT an open source that presents whatever opinion for a specific matter. This is Google's job. If thats the case with Wikipedia, or some want it this way, then thats wrong. Now clearly the CIA developed list is wrong. And its wrong because it included two countries, namely South Africa and Turkey, which are NOT developed by any measurable means. On the other hand, it does not include countries which are developed. Why South Africa and Turkey are not developed? Because a country cannot be called developed when it has the 76th worst HDI and a quality of life that is worse than that of Albania. Weapons industry, or industry in general sometimes has nothing to do with development. Brazil has industry, Luxembourg has not (i.e. Luxemburg does not manufacture aircraft), but Luxembourg is developed and Brazil is not. Development has to do with quality of life, infastructure and the well-being of people. The better the people live, the more developed the country. Whoever has been to Turkey knows the massive poverty. A substantial percentage of people live with less than 2 $ per day, and many villages in the Eastern part of the country dont have swages or fresh water. Serious diseases cannot be treated due to lack of infastructure and medicine. I believe that CIA knows all these. But for some reasons (mainly political) it includes those countries out of the blue. It is our responsibility to filter the CORRECT data and present them to the reader. FDAU ( talk) 18:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A suggestion which might help some editors be happy with the problematic nature of the CIA's DC list is to use its criteria. We could call it "Developed Countries according to the CIA."
The CIAs explanation indicates membership of the OECD indicates a country is developed. It "includes the market-oriented economies of the mainly democratic nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)" So we can add - Mexico, Czech Republic, South Korea, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia.
We can then say it also adds Bermuda, Israel, South Africa, and the European ministates to the OECD members. And that the criteria for including these is not mentioned.
That way those worried about Turkey not being thought of as developed and those wanting Korea on the list would be happy. Also the ridiculing of the CIA by including all their errors wouldn't be necessary and we need not have the outdated $10,000 stuff.
Obviously those who want to insist, rightly in my view, that South Africa is not a developed country will still be unhappy but we can't please everyone. But I think the "pro CIA" lobby who own the page will not allow this list to be deleted despite what are widely perceived to be the clear problems with the list.
Perhaps, in the light of their criteria above, this list really should just be mentioned as an addendum to the OECD list.
Do we have any evidence of any authoritative source using this list ?
PS: I have tried contact the CIA about their list but to no avail. Reputable data suppliers - Eurostat/OECD/WB/IMF/FTSE group - in my experience always reply PPS: I would like to restore the FTSE Group Developed Country list from their glossary. Developed country status is decided on the basis of size of GNI/capita plus a range of indicators of the development of markets - stock markets - foreign exchange markets - property rights safe guards. These explicit measures are to my mind clearer than the CIAs inclusion of South Africa. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 23:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
I protected this page for three days because of the continued edit war over the CIA list of developed countries. I strongly encourage those involved in this dispute open a request for comment on the topic. Both sides have valid points (the list is ancient, but the current language in the article does explain the nuances), and it is clear that you won't be able to sort this out on this talk page. Hiberniantears ( talk) 13:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The CIA wants to appear "fair" on a global scale. Turkey and South Africa are added to the CIA's list for a couple of reasons. The CIA probably thought that it would be good to have at least a single Muslim nation, and a single African nation, in its Developed Country list. Among all Muslim nations, Turkey fits the most to this category. It's the only Muslim-majority country with a secular democracy and a secular constitution. It has a well-established industrial base (for instance, Turkey is the world's 4th largest shipbuilder and Europe's 6th largest automotive manufacturer), and also has a powerful military (the second largest Armed Force of NATO after that of the United States) which makes Turkey a recognized regional power. Turkey is a founding member of both the OECD (since 1961) and the G-20 (since 1999). Turkey is also a founding member of the Council of Europe (since 1949), a member of NATO (since 1952), and a possible future member of the European Union (accession negotiations began in 2005.) All of these characteristics probably made Turkey the most "fitting" Muslim candidate to enter the CIA's list, according to the CIA. Likewise, among all African nations, South Africa has the highest credentials to be classified as a Developed Country. South Africa was "another Australia" for many decades during the colonial period. It has a well-established civilian and military industrial base, mostly founded by the Anglo-Dutch ruling elite. South Africa is a country that produced its own warplanes, tanks, howitzers, attack helicopters, guided missiles and nuclear weapons. The international isolation of (and embargo on) South Africa for many years because of its Apartheid policy further strengthened the development of national industries in this country (this has also been the case in Iran, which was a wealthy "consumer" during the Shah's period, but was forced to become a major "producer" because of the international isolation since 1979.) South Africa also has valuable natural resources such as gold and diamond (the world's largest reserves) which have been controlled by the same Anglo-Dutch elite that established the country's industry. The level of established democracy, education and overall human development in South Africa is also much better than all other African countries, including Egypt, which is the next best African candidate for this list - so think of it. As for the exclusion of obviously-developed countries such as South Korea from the CIA's list (in my opinion Russia is also a developed country, capable of producing anything including space shuttles, space stations and rockets) I have nothing to say. The most probable reason is the "recent" emergence of South Korea as an important industrial power (the CIA's list has to be updated) and the old hostility/rivalry/prejudice towards Russia dating from the Cold War years (let's also not forget that the CIA's list predates the Putin period and sees Russia as it was in the Yeltsin period.) Shiham K ( talk) 11:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. And it should stay that way - anyone arguing the CIA is more "reliable" is clearly POV - The CIA is EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE, they even changed all of their GDP figure for 2008 yesterday, how the heck is that RELIABLE? Just because WIKIPEDIA uses it??!?! Paramorian ( talk) 00:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
US GOVERNMENT vs. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
Thanks for the comment, however we still have to realize the fact that CIA's attempt to appear "fair" on a global scale is a mere speculation. There is no evidence that necessarily proves that CIA is adopting a fair, global and neutral perspective on this issue. We also don't have any explanations or evidence that justifies its choice of the developed countries. We can't assume that U.S. placed Turkey on the developed club just because of its Muslim status; I rather want to see the source stating that "Turkey is included on this list for the following reasons...." On the other hand, we do know the fact that this CIA is an agency promoted by the U.S. government. The list of the developed states in CIA is neither verified nor accepted at an international level, and hence this is only a perspective from the United States. The danger of sourcing government agency websites is that the specific nation's interests may distort the information provided. As we all know, US government sources are fairly "reliable" for the most part, however CIA is not an appropriate source when we are dealing with developed countries. Neutral and reliable sources would be IMF or World Bank which are organizations recognized by the international community; these sources provide a neutral overview of the nations around the world, and treat each country on an equal scale. No country has an authority to define which country is developed or not, it is an issue the international community has to solve. -- Kingj123 ( talk) 21:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe the CIA is a reliable source, so it should stay. As for the controversy over exclusion of South Korea in the CIA list, South Korea is defined as a developing country by the Korean government, and it's implied as such in various media sources in Korea. Cydevil38 ( talk) 10:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you consider CIA reliable? That is the issue here. Please explaine why you believe that CIA is reliable. -- Kingj123 ( talk) 15:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If the total sum is less than 1, -We Check 6(or 7) lists- we should delete. I think too many countries are in developed list -- Tnaniua ( talk) 07:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
i have checked out gdp per capita for every members in oecd and found out that every member in oecd is high income countries now.
so why are mexico and turkey not included?? Hawkchoi ( talk) 17:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
They revised all of their GDP figures yesterday, which is utterly ridiculous considering that they simply change the value whenever they want. They dont even have a fixed schedule on how to update their data like the World Bank or IMF (which comes out every April/October). The CIA is merely a COLLECTION of data from OTHER, MORE RELIABLE SOURCES. Everyone thinks the CIA is reliable but that is utter-nonsense - just because it has the name "CIA" doesnt mean it is reliable. Anyone further arguint that the CIA is more "reliable" is hence only one thing - brainwashed by the U.S. government to "trust and believe" int he CIA. Clearly POV and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Paramorian ( talk) 00:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the problem with your argument is the assumption that CIA is reliable. How can you prove that CIA is reliable? I am not saying that CIA is unreliable necessarily but we just don’t know. I find it absurd to include sources that cannot be confirmed reliable. What if you don't like some editors sourcing blogs on the article, do you just leave them just because you can't "find an external and reputable source that states that" this blog is unreliable.
But not all of the sources sources have POV. If we take a look at other sources such as IMF and World Bank they are all internationally recognized organizations which adopt equal and universal perspectives in contrast to the source from the United States which is not yet universally accepted. Wikipedia, as far as I know, also has to adopt universal views upon this issue and hence the source from U.S. government cannot be treated equally to the ones from the international sources. I would not complain if the sources from other countries are included in the list but I do not find fair for mentioning the perspective from only one country from over three hundred countries around the world. Why U.S., what about perspective from China, France, Brazil or former Soviet Republics? Until we have fairly balanced views from different countries, we should leave the source out for now.
--
Kingj123 (
talk)
03:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
One seems to have a perception that CIA is reliable, but that is only an assumption. How do we know that CIA list is reliable, explanations? What makes us to believe that CIA is reputable, its name or the country backing up the organization? Unfortunately, I have to repeat myself again. CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) is clearly not a reputable source in this article because A. Only provides a perspective from one country B. CIA is not an internationally accepted source C. No explanations or justification for its choice of the countries. Yes, it may be worth mentioning in the article, but only if there are other perspectives from different countries around the world are mentioned as well. If not, we need to find explanations that back the neutrality and legitimacy of the source. Or else, the reliability of CIA remains in question. --
Kingj123 (
talk)
22:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
if FTSE developed market list can be added in to this article, why not add MSCI developed market list??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This article uses the word 'Criteria' incorrectly in numerous places, as if it were singular. 'Criteria' is the plural of 'Criterion' which should be used in sentences such as "One such criterion is income per capita...". Kevoreilly ( talk) 09:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I believe it is redundant to have both the CIA and the IMF "advanced economies" in the summary table, each with their own separate column. The CIA list of advanced economies is essentially derived from the IMF, this being acknowledged by the CIA itself. Its purpose is to augment the IMF list with the addition of a few further countries which are not IMF members. The IMF list has since been updated to include 5 further countries. In my view, the best option would be to merge the two lists so as to include all current IMF AEs (33 countries, including the 5 recent additions), as well as the additional CIA AEs (Andorra, Faroe Islands, Monaco, Bermuda, Holy See, Liechtenstein, San Marino). Ronline ✉ 02:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Quick Links for MedCab Case: Cases/2007-06-25 Developed country | ||
Developed country • Andrew pmk • Eliko • 74.12.182.133 • Coloane |
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)
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)
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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 explanation 213.5.211.252 16:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Some diverse references would be nice.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 ( talk) 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
Scandinavian countries, Japan, Canada, Australia? Could this article talk about them? -- Chargin' Chuck ( talk) 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
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...
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think China and Russia should be blue. -- 87.14.81.245 ( talk) 20:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 matter Hawkchoi ( talk) 17:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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...
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)
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 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)
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)
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:
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:
WP:POINT. ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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) -
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'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)
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
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 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)
Don't worry, the straw poll is just a brief overview. -- Kingj123 ( talk) 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
HIE without lending eligibility
Neither HIE nor lending eligibilty
HIE with lending eligibility
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? |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Okay, I need help from other editors to help this out however.
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)
Here is the FTSE Group's little list for your consideration. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC))
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 [2]:"
• Australia | • Germany | • Japan | • South Korea [3] |
• Austria | • Greece | • Luxembourg [4] | • Spain |
• Belgium [4] | • Hong Kong | • Netherlands | • Sweden |
• Canada | • Iceland | • New Zealand | • Switzerland |
• Denmark | • Ireland | • Norway | • United Kingdom |
• Finland | • Israel | • Portugal | • United States |
• France | • Italy | • Singapore |
I suppose all developed countries have developed markets. -- 173.32.153.76 ( talk) 02:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
so i think it is relevant topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.216.124.148 ( talk) 07:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
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))
what is developed country according to CIA?? anyways i think we need to talk about this Hawkchoi ( talk) 10:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
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))
I have made notes of the problems ( Msrasnw ( talk) 16:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC))
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))
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))
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 [1] |
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
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)
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)
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))
I would like to put this under Other lists of Developed Countries have noted
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
According to them the following countries are classified as "Developed Countries [3]:"
• Australia | • Germany | • Japan | • South Korea [4] |
• Austria | • Greece | • Luxembourg [5] | • Spain |
• Belgium [5] | • 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))
Mentioning the FTSE group's list
FTSE Restored a mentioning of FTSE group's Developed Country list and link to Developed Markets, even if am not allowed to put the list itself in, because they have updated the glossary defintion which addressed albeit only partially the problem adressed by one of the editors critical of including even a mentioning of this list. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 19:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
Removed link to International Power - Power in international relations as unrelated concept. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 23:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC))
I would like to suggest we remove the CIA's advanced economies list as my reading of it is that the CIA just took an old version of the IMF list and added some small countries which it thought were missing. I would take their approach to imply that they accepted the IMF's approach and so we could just go with the IMF's list which has been updated more recently. I don't see that the CIA list adds much. Perhaps a note to the IMF list saying that the CIA suggested adding seven smaller countries to an old version of the list. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 23:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
According to the Chinese naming convention, "Republic of China" should be used when it is used in the sense of a country. An anonymous IP users constantly changes the country to "Taiwan", which violates the convention.-- pyl ( talk) 06:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Put back the introductory note to the summary table. I think we need to justify, explain and warn users about this table if we are including it. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 13:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
Since the CIA list was undeleted after I deleted it. I'll try merging it with the IMF list instead. I think the brief notes to it by the CIA indicate it is not a list they have come up with. They are just reporting the IMF list and then making a presumption about what they percieve as an oversight. And then the IMF made some changes to their list which, were the CIA to update their material I guess they would include. I think the new version seems to cover all points. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) is a program of the United States Government which allows citizens of specific countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for up to 90 days without having to obtain a visa. All countries participating in the program are high-income economies with a high HDI and are regarded as developed countries.
As of 31 December 2008, 35 countries were designated as VWP participants:
Europe (29)
Asia (4)
Oceania (2)
-- Tnaniua ( talk) 09:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Where does the figure 7.0 come from in the summary. Nonone except us in wikipedia is implying the UK is not a developed country? Is this unwise ( Msrasnw ( talk) 10:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC))
Shouldn't our summary table have the top 30 QoL countries if it is a summary ( Msrasnw ( talk) 00:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
I have a problem with the quality of life index, no where in the article does it say that the countries with the top quality of life are considered developed country. Nor does that or any article I see say that there is a link between the quality of life for a country in determining if that country is a developed country. To put that list in without any reliable source saying otherwise is SYN and OR. Deavenger ( talk) 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the big problem is there is no one accepted definition of what development means. This is what makes it interesting! It is perhaps intrinsically multidimensional and how far along each dimension one must be before one could say a country was developed, even in that one dimension - is also debatable. I think I like the hotchpotch of lists that has emerged is nice - it is I think a shame that other lists like the FTSE list and the slightly strange Visa list which add extra nuances to the meaning of development, aren't allowed on by those policing the page. Anyway the hotchpotch we have seems much better than using just one list - or even just a few. The CIA list is I think particularly problematic. There is no explanation of why countries are viewed as developed - for example - South Africa! All the lists are flawed. I think there should be more explanation on the page of the different views and the debate this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a glossary. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 01:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
The Economist has in a study examined the state of democracy in 167 countries and attempted to quantify this with an Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy which focused on five general categories; electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. According to Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index 2008 Sweden scored a total of 9.88 on a scale from zero to ten, which was the highest result, while North Korea scored the lowest with 0.86. [a 1] The countries are categorized into "Full Democracies", "Flawed Democracies", "Hybrid Regimes" (all considered democracies), and "Authoritarian Regimes" (considered dictatorial).
2008 ranking
No. | Location | Index | Category |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Sweden | 9.88 | Full democracy |
2 | Norway | 9.68 | Full democracy |
3 | Iceland | 9.65 | Full democracy |
4 | Netherlands | 9.53 | Full democracy |
5 | Denmark | 9.52 | Full democracy |
6 | Finland | 9.25 | Full democracy |
7 | New Zealand | 9.19 | Full democracy |
8 | Switzerland | 9.15 | Full democracy |
9 | Luxembourg | 9.10 | Full democracy |
10 | Australia | 9.09 | Full democracy |
11 | Canada | 9.07 | Full democracy |
12 | Ireland | 9.01 | Full democracy |
13 | Germany | 8.82 | Full democracy |
14 | Austria | 8.49 | Full democracy |
15 | Spain | 8.45 | Full democracy |
16 | Malta | 8.39 | Full democracy |
17 | Japan | 8.25 | Full democracy |
18 | United States | 8.22 | Full democracy |
19 | Czech Republic | 8.19 | Full democracy |
20 | Belgium | 8.16 | Full democracy |
21 | United Kingdom | 8.15 | Full democracy |
22 | Greece | 8.13 | Full democracy |
23 | Uruguay | 8.08 | Full democracy |
24 | France | 8.07 | Full democracy |
25 | Portugal | 8.05 | Full democracy |
26 | Mauritius | 8.04 | Full democracy |
27 | Costa Rica | 8.04 | Full democracy |
28 | South Korea | 8.01 | Full democracy |
29 | Italy | 7.98 | Flawed democracy |
30 | Slovenia | 7.96 | Flawed democracy |
I'd like add this one as well. -- Tnaniua ( talk) 10:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this would be a nice addition to the page - but it would require justifying on the page. That is there should be some sources to indicate that democracy is some measure of, or contribution to developmental status. Sen's Development as freedom - might be useful in this regard. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 01:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
according to CIA, less developed countries (LDCs) are
the bottom group in the hierarchy of developed countries (DCs), former USSR/Eastern Europe (former USSR/EE), and less developed countries (LDCs); mainly countries and dependent areas with low levels of output, living standards, and technology; per capita GDPs are generally below $5,000 and often less than $1,500; however, the group also includes a number of countries with high per capita incomes, areas of advanced technology, and rapid rates of growth; includes the advanced developing countries, developing countries, Four Dragons (Four Tigers), least developed countries (LLDCs), low-income countries, middle-income countries, newly industrializing economies (NIEs), the South, Third World, underdeveloped countries, undeveloped countries; the 172 LDCs are: Afghanistan, Algeria, American Samoa, Angola, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Cayman Islands, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Colombia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Falkland Islands, Fiji, French Guiana, French Polynesia, Gabon, The Gambia, Gaza Strip, Ghana, Gibraltar, Greenland, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guam, Guatemala, Guernsey, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Isle of Man, Jamaica, Jersey, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, North Korea, South Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Macau, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Martinique, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Montserrat, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Oman, Palau, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Pitcairn Islands, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Reunion, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tokelau, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, UAE, Uganda, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Virgin Islands, Wallis and Futuna, West Bank, Western Sahara, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe;
-I am thinking of removeing CIA list.
is really old source. today is 6/3/09.
It's not only my opinion.
Now, Singapore per capita GDPs is over 50000. Singapore is absolutely more developed than South Africa.--
Tnaniua (
talk)
06:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the removal of the CIA list is quite a good idea - I think the factbook's status is really like a rather poorly updated encyclopedia rather than a proper source like the IMF, WB, UN or OECD. I don't think they are claiming to be collecting data - or even catagorize countries - rather they seem to claim to be reporting other (eg the IMFs) lists but in a dated way. However some of the text needs tidying up to reflect this. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC))
I agree. It was wrong placing it there at the first place. Its completely biased and misleading. Clearly countries such as South Africa or Turkey are not developed countries. Not by GDP per capita, HDI or quality of life standards. I am still trying to figure out why CIA would consider such countries as developed! FDAU ( talk) 22:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
someone screwed it up. For example, Iran has a <.9 HDI index
someone screwed it up. For example, Iran has a <.9 HDI index —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.234.37 ( talk) 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The CIA is the organization that has originally coined the term "Developed country" and is currently the only major organization in the world that uses this term (the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD are using terms such as "High-income country" (which is something else: for instance Qatar is a "high income country" but not a "developed country" because lacks a developed industrial base, the education and civil rights level of women is low, democracy and freedoms are not fully developed, etc...) and "Quality of life index", which is also something else.
If this article's name shall remain as " Developed country", then the CIA "Developed country list" must remain. If you want, you can create separate articles for "High income country" and "Quality of life index" (not all "high-income" countries are "developed" countries: e.g. Qatar, Brunei, etc...)
Do not remove the CIA list just because your beloved country is not in it. You may argue that the CIA's list has its flaws, that South Korea and Russia must also be in it, but the duty of Wikipedia is to "list facts by external sources" - not to make "original research". Whether you like it, or not. 85.153.27.4 ( talk) 09:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The CIA website says nothing about its list being based on GDP per capita (if that was the case, Qatar and Kuwait would be developed countries, wouldn't they? And South Africa wouldn't be in the CIA's list.)
Here's what the CIA says:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html
"the top group in the hierarchy of developed countries (DCs), former USSR/Eastern Europe (former USSR/EE), and less developed countries (LDCs); includes the market-oriented economies of the mainly democratic nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Bermuda, Israel, South Africa, and the European ministates; also known as the First World, high-income countries, the North, industrial countries; generally have a per capita GDP in excess of $10,000 although four OECD countries and South Africa have figures well under $10,000 and two of the excluded OPEC countries have figures of more than $10,000; the 34 DCs are: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, NZ, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, US; note - similar to the new International Monetary Fund (IMF) term "advanced economies" that adds Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan but drops Malta, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey"
^ Anything other than the official description in the CIA's website is "original research". 78.40.231.225 ( talk) 06:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2008 ranking
No. | Location | Index | Category |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Sweden | 9.88 | Full democracy |
2 | Norway | 9.68 | Full democracy |
3 | Iceland | 9.65 | Full democracy |
4 | Netherlands | 9.53 | Full democracy |
5 | Denmark | 9.52 | Full democracy |
6 | Finland | 9.25 | Full democracy |
7 | New Zealand | 9.19 | Full democracy |
8 | Switzerland | 9.15 | Full democracy |
9 | Luxembourg | 9.10 | Full democracy |
10 | Australia | 9.09 | Full democracy |
11 | Canada | 9.07 | Full democracy |
12 | Ireland | 9.01 | Full democracy |
13 | Germany | 8.82 | Full democracy |
14 | Austria | 8.49 | Full democracy |
15 | Spain | 8.45 | Full democracy |
16 | Malta | 8.39 | Full democracy |
17 | Japan | 8.25 | Full democracy |
18 | United States | 8.22 | Full democracy |
19 | Czech Republic | 8.19 | Full democracy |
20 | Belgium | 8.16 | Full democracy |
21 | United Kingdom | 8.15 | Full democracy |
22 | Greece | 8.13 | Full democracy |
23 | Uruguay | 8.08 | Full democracy |
24 | France | 8.07 | Full democracy |
25 | Portugal | 8.05 | Full democracy |
26 | Mauritius | 8.04 | Full democracy |
27 | Costa Rica | 8.04 | Full democracy |
28 | South Korea | 8.01 | Full democracy |
29 | Italy | 7.98 | Flawed democracy |
30 | Slovenia | 7.96 | Flawed democracy |
Turkey is not OECD member. It's not democracy and no highly developed military industries. Denel? lol see Acer Inc. Samsung. -- Tnaniua ( talk) 07:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html. and It's 1990s source. today is 14/3/9.-- Tnaniua ( talk) 07:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It based on GDP per capita and today, Singapore GDP per capita is over 50,000.-- Tnaniua ( talk) 08:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
the bottom group in the hierarchy of developed countries (DCs), former USSR/Eastern Europe (former USSR/EE), and less developed countries (LDCs); mainly countries and dependent areas with low levels of output, living standards, and technology; per capita GDPs are generally below $5,000 and often less than $1,500; however, the group also includes a number of countries with high per capita incomes, areas of advanced technology, and rapid rates of growth; includes the advanced developing countries, developing countries, Four Dragons (Four Tigers), least developed countries (LLDCs), low-income countries, middle-income countries, newly industrializing economies (NIEs), the South, Third World, underdeveloped countries, undeveloped countries; the 172 LDCs are: Afghanistan, Algeria, American Samoa, Angola, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Cayman Islands, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Colombia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Falkland Islands, Fiji, French Guiana, French Polynesia, Gabon, The Gambia, Gaza Strip, Ghana, Gibraltar, Greenland, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guam, Guatemala, Guernsey, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Isle of Man, Jamaica, Jersey, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, North Korea, South Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Macau, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Martinique, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Montserrat, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Oman, Palau, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Pitcairn Islands, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Reunion, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tokelau, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, UAE, Uganda, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Virgin Islands, Wallis and Futuna, West Bank, Western Sahara, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe;
- CIA list is really old source today is 14/3/09.
for example, according to CIA, Singapore GDP per capita is under $5,000 but today, Singapore GDP per capita is over $50,000. --
Tnaniua (
talk)
08:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think given the nature of the controversy of the CIA DC list it is worth mentioning in problems in the text. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 12:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
Why is the outdated information being retained and if it's for historical archival value, shouldn't it have a separate article, rather than the confusion (misinformation) it's provoking here? I can see there's been a bit of a to-do over this article, so if I've missed the point of its inclusion, apologies. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! ( talk) 12:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The CIA developed country list is included not because of the accuracy of the information but because some esatblished users insist on it. I think it is either to do with some view about the reputability of the CIA, or their preference for a list that includes some particular countries and excludes others. The argument seems to me to be:
I think there is no point deleting it and then having it restored again and again and again. It appears to me its inclusion is anachronistic but perhaps this is the sort of thing that makes wikipedia a bit interesting. The promblem comes when people start to use Wikipedia uncritically and start to accept the South Africa for example is a developed country and that South Korea is not.
Both Turkey and South Africa were I think on the CIAs list as part of a political agenda. Turkey's mebership of the OECD and South Africa - were both part of the CIAs need for an allies in the fight against the communism. Wrt South Africa some argue that it was in part a Developed Country because the whites there lived a life style equivalent to a developed country - but now when there is a tendancy to treat all people more equally - hardly anyone would buy in to that view.
Any student of development knows that by any objective measures South Africa and Turkey are less developed than South Korea.
There seems to be no way to debate this properly as many editors seem to act as if their view is so obviously correct that there need be no discussion. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 14:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
I think if we are including this list which has been the source of massive argument then the nature of the a problems should be addressed in the article. Which of the specific problems indicated are not worthy of being mentioned and why? Factual problems and inconsistencies with the information are, in my view, suitable contents for an encylopedia entry which this is. Are we not allowed to mention which bits of our articles are the cause of debate among editors. Which bits are : point of view?( Msrasnw ( talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
I have removed some of the, "outdated"'s and other language to make it appear less critical. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
No, we are not allowed to mention how some list is causing controversy among editors. In an encyclopedia you never see anything like that. In wikipedia, you do points according to the sources, a reliable source without it being OR or SYN. And we can't add POV like "which it isn't", and "This is possibly problematic as many high income countries, using its definition of greater than $10,000, are not on this list, many of the ministates are not generally refered to as industrial countries, and a list that includes South Africa would not normally be refered to as the North." The second sentence is complete analysis, which you need a source for as it's required on wikipedia. Even if it might be true, we still can't put these points without a source. Deavenger ( talk) 20:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the mention of the controversial nature of the list and just mention the lists oddity in relation to our other lists as indicated by our summary table. My reading of the CIAs explanation is that their criteria is OECD countries plus Bermuda, Israel, South Africa, and the European ministates minus Mexico. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 21:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
wikipedia should show facts yes. cia list is outdated and old but it shows their perspective of developed country plus cia has advanced economy list too so i think their definition of developed country and advanced economy is different the definition of developed country doenst only mean wealthy country it could mean regional power or somethinh... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
see https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html Developed countries = high-income countries; generally have a per capita GDP in excess of $10,000. -- Tnaniua ( talk) 07:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I always believed that a good encyclopedia is the one that can filter bad info and present the reader with the correct and credible information. An encyclopedia is NOT an open source that presents whatever opinion for a specific matter. This is Google's job. If thats the case with Wikipedia, or some want it this way, then thats wrong. Now clearly the CIA developed list is wrong. And its wrong because it included two countries, namely South Africa and Turkey, which are NOT developed by any measurable means. On the other hand, it does not include countries which are developed. Why South Africa and Turkey are not developed? Because a country cannot be called developed when it has the 76th worst HDI and a quality of life that is worse than that of Albania. Weapons industry, or industry in general sometimes has nothing to do with development. Brazil has industry, Luxembourg has not (i.e. Luxemburg does not manufacture aircraft), but Luxembourg is developed and Brazil is not. Development has to do with quality of life, infastructure and the well-being of people. The better the people live, the more developed the country. Whoever has been to Turkey knows the massive poverty. A substantial percentage of people live with less than 2 $ per day, and many villages in the Eastern part of the country dont have swages or fresh water. Serious diseases cannot be treated due to lack of infastructure and medicine. I believe that CIA knows all these. But for some reasons (mainly political) it includes those countries out of the blue. It is our responsibility to filter the CORRECT data and present them to the reader. FDAU ( talk) 18:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A suggestion which might help some editors be happy with the problematic nature of the CIA's DC list is to use its criteria. We could call it "Developed Countries according to the CIA."
The CIAs explanation indicates membership of the OECD indicates a country is developed. It "includes the market-oriented economies of the mainly democratic nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)" So we can add - Mexico, Czech Republic, South Korea, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia.
We can then say it also adds Bermuda, Israel, South Africa, and the European ministates to the OECD members. And that the criteria for including these is not mentioned.
That way those worried about Turkey not being thought of as developed and those wanting Korea on the list would be happy. Also the ridiculing of the CIA by including all their errors wouldn't be necessary and we need not have the outdated $10,000 stuff.
Obviously those who want to insist, rightly in my view, that South Africa is not a developed country will still be unhappy but we can't please everyone. But I think the "pro CIA" lobby who own the page will not allow this list to be deleted despite what are widely perceived to be the clear problems with the list.
Perhaps, in the light of their criteria above, this list really should just be mentioned as an addendum to the OECD list.
Do we have any evidence of any authoritative source using this list ?
PS: I have tried contact the CIA about their list but to no avail. Reputable data suppliers - Eurostat/OECD/WB/IMF/FTSE group - in my experience always reply PPS: I would like to restore the FTSE Group Developed Country list from their glossary. Developed country status is decided on the basis of size of GNI/capita plus a range of indicators of the development of markets - stock markets - foreign exchange markets - property rights safe guards. These explicit measures are to my mind clearer than the CIAs inclusion of South Africa. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 23:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
I protected this page for three days because of the continued edit war over the CIA list of developed countries. I strongly encourage those involved in this dispute open a request for comment on the topic. Both sides have valid points (the list is ancient, but the current language in the article does explain the nuances), and it is clear that you won't be able to sort this out on this talk page. Hiberniantears ( talk) 13:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The CIA wants to appear "fair" on a global scale. Turkey and South Africa are added to the CIA's list for a couple of reasons. The CIA probably thought that it would be good to have at least a single Muslim nation, and a single African nation, in its Developed Country list. Among all Muslim nations, Turkey fits the most to this category. It's the only Muslim-majority country with a secular democracy and a secular constitution. It has a well-established industrial base (for instance, Turkey is the world's 4th largest shipbuilder and Europe's 6th largest automotive manufacturer), and also has a powerful military (the second largest Armed Force of NATO after that of the United States) which makes Turkey a recognized regional power. Turkey is a founding member of both the OECD (since 1961) and the G-20 (since 1999). Turkey is also a founding member of the Council of Europe (since 1949), a member of NATO (since 1952), and a possible future member of the European Union (accession negotiations began in 2005.) All of these characteristics probably made Turkey the most "fitting" Muslim candidate to enter the CIA's list, according to the CIA. Likewise, among all African nations, South Africa has the highest credentials to be classified as a Developed Country. South Africa was "another Australia" for many decades during the colonial period. It has a well-established civilian and military industrial base, mostly founded by the Anglo-Dutch ruling elite. South Africa is a country that produced its own warplanes, tanks, howitzers, attack helicopters, guided missiles and nuclear weapons. The international isolation of (and embargo on) South Africa for many years because of its Apartheid policy further strengthened the development of national industries in this country (this has also been the case in Iran, which was a wealthy "consumer" during the Shah's period, but was forced to become a major "producer" because of the international isolation since 1979.) South Africa also has valuable natural resources such as gold and diamond (the world's largest reserves) which have been controlled by the same Anglo-Dutch elite that established the country's industry. The level of established democracy, education and overall human development in South Africa is also much better than all other African countries, including Egypt, which is the next best African candidate for this list - so think of it. As for the exclusion of obviously-developed countries such as South Korea from the CIA's list (in my opinion Russia is also a developed country, capable of producing anything including space shuttles, space stations and rockets) I have nothing to say. The most probable reason is the "recent" emergence of South Korea as an important industrial power (the CIA's list has to be updated) and the old hostility/rivalry/prejudice towards Russia dating from the Cold War years (let's also not forget that the CIA's list predates the Putin period and sees Russia as it was in the Yeltsin period.) Shiham K ( talk) 11:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. And it should stay that way - anyone arguing the CIA is more "reliable" is clearly POV - The CIA is EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE, they even changed all of their GDP figure for 2008 yesterday, how the heck is that RELIABLE? Just because WIKIPEDIA uses it??!?! Paramorian ( talk) 00:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
US GOVERNMENT vs. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
Thanks for the comment, however we still have to realize the fact that CIA's attempt to appear "fair" on a global scale is a mere speculation. There is no evidence that necessarily proves that CIA is adopting a fair, global and neutral perspective on this issue. We also don't have any explanations or evidence that justifies its choice of the developed countries. We can't assume that U.S. placed Turkey on the developed club just because of its Muslim status; I rather want to see the source stating that "Turkey is included on this list for the following reasons...." On the other hand, we do know the fact that this CIA is an agency promoted by the U.S. government. The list of the developed states in CIA is neither verified nor accepted at an international level, and hence this is only a perspective from the United States. The danger of sourcing government agency websites is that the specific nation's interests may distort the information provided. As we all know, US government sources are fairly "reliable" for the most part, however CIA is not an appropriate source when we are dealing with developed countries. Neutral and reliable sources would be IMF or World Bank which are organizations recognized by the international community; these sources provide a neutral overview of the nations around the world, and treat each country on an equal scale. No country has an authority to define which country is developed or not, it is an issue the international community has to solve. -- Kingj123 ( talk) 21:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe the CIA is a reliable source, so it should stay. As for the controversy over exclusion of South Korea in the CIA list, South Korea is defined as a developing country by the Korean government, and it's implied as such in various media sources in Korea. Cydevil38 ( talk) 10:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you consider CIA reliable? That is the issue here. Please explaine why you believe that CIA is reliable. -- Kingj123 ( talk) 15:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If the total sum is less than 1, -We Check 6(or 7) lists- we should delete. I think too many countries are in developed list -- Tnaniua ( talk) 07:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
i have checked out gdp per capita for every members in oecd and found out that every member in oecd is high income countries now.
so why are mexico and turkey not included?? Hawkchoi ( talk) 17:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
They revised all of their GDP figures yesterday, which is utterly ridiculous considering that they simply change the value whenever they want. They dont even have a fixed schedule on how to update their data like the World Bank or IMF (which comes out every April/October). The CIA is merely a COLLECTION of data from OTHER, MORE RELIABLE SOURCES. Everyone thinks the CIA is reliable but that is utter-nonsense - just because it has the name "CIA" doesnt mean it is reliable. Anyone further arguint that the CIA is more "reliable" is hence only one thing - brainwashed by the U.S. government to "trust and believe" int he CIA. Clearly POV and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Paramorian ( talk) 00:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the problem with your argument is the assumption that CIA is reliable. How can you prove that CIA is reliable? I am not saying that CIA is unreliable necessarily but we just don’t know. I find it absurd to include sources that cannot be confirmed reliable. What if you don't like some editors sourcing blogs on the article, do you just leave them just because you can't "find an external and reputable source that states that" this blog is unreliable.
But not all of the sources sources have POV. If we take a look at other sources such as IMF and World Bank they are all internationally recognized organizations which adopt equal and universal perspectives in contrast to the source from the United States which is not yet universally accepted. Wikipedia, as far as I know, also has to adopt universal views upon this issue and hence the source from U.S. government cannot be treated equally to the ones from the international sources. I would not complain if the sources from other countries are included in the list but I do not find fair for mentioning the perspective from only one country from over three hundred countries around the world. Why U.S., what about perspective from China, France, Brazil or former Soviet Republics? Until we have fairly balanced views from different countries, we should leave the source out for now.
--
Kingj123 (
talk)
03:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
One seems to have a perception that CIA is reliable, but that is only an assumption. How do we know that CIA list is reliable, explanations? What makes us to believe that CIA is reputable, its name or the country backing up the organization? Unfortunately, I have to repeat myself again. CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) is clearly not a reputable source in this article because A. Only provides a perspective from one country B. CIA is not an internationally accepted source C. No explanations or justification for its choice of the countries. Yes, it may be worth mentioning in the article, but only if there are other perspectives from different countries around the world are mentioned as well. If not, we need to find explanations that back the neutrality and legitimacy of the source. Or else, the reliability of CIA remains in question. --
Kingj123 (
talk)
22:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
if FTSE developed market list can be added in to this article, why not add MSCI developed market list??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This article uses the word 'Criteria' incorrectly in numerous places, as if it were singular. 'Criteria' is the plural of 'Criterion' which should be used in sentences such as "One such criterion is income per capita...". Kevoreilly ( talk) 09:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I believe it is redundant to have both the CIA and the IMF "advanced economies" in the summary table, each with their own separate column. The CIA list of advanced economies is essentially derived from the IMF, this being acknowledged by the CIA itself. Its purpose is to augment the IMF list with the addition of a few further countries which are not IMF members. The IMF list has since been updated to include 5 further countries. In my view, the best option would be to merge the two lists so as to include all current IMF AEs (33 countries, including the 5 recent additions), as well as the additional CIA AEs (Andorra, Faroe Islands, Monaco, Bermuda, Holy See, Liechtenstein, San Marino). Ronline ✉ 02:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)