![]() | 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 |
CIA's list of "developed countries" is the authoritative "THE list of developed countries." Now, some people might not like the list, but the list is correct, and is THE list. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should not prevent people from accessing this information, but rather provide this information. Whether to agree with the list or not depends on the reader. But the list has to be there since it is THE list. Excluding that list is like writing a page about US states, but not including the names of the states since some people "believe" (yes, "believe") that one or more of the states should not be in the list. If Wikipedia wants to keep its credibility, the list should be put back. ~~# Heyyaaa (I don't know how to sign my name)
The official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research states that "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." If this list was merely created by some nobody wikipedian from the lists of World Bank, IMF and CIA (none of which is properly cited in the section btw) and is not supported by any credible authority as a whole, then it is an original research material that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It should be replaced by the original 3 lists with proper citation. -- Saintjust 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors cannot put toghther a comphrensive list. All we can do is list the countries certain organizations list a "high income" or advanced. It is simply not up to us to decide whether a country is developed or not - especially since there isn't a concerete definition. Is Macao developed? We can't answer that question with a yes or no. What we can do is identify it as country that has been classified as high income by the World Bank. Whether or not that makes Macao a developed country is up to the reader to decide. The list is OR becuase it is an attempt to decide which country is and isn't developed -something we simply can't decide on WP. I have started replacing the list with seperate lists that reflect the World Bank and IMF classification - I'll add one for the CIA later. Regards, Signature brendel 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I checked up with important lists one of which is from the CIA and found that South Korea (SK) is an advanced economy but not a developed country. Find the list at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html.
It is very inappropriate to list SK as a developed country. The classification 'advanced economies' clearly mentions that it includes developing countries in Asia and Europe.
Svr014 ( talk) 15:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)NICSupporter
The term advanced economy is used differently than the term developed country by some arms of the US and other Western governments. There are 28 advanced economies of which South Korea and Singapore are part of. But there are 34 developed countries (DCs) of which only the G7 countries and 27 other countries are part of. Look at the source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html for more information... Svr014 ( talk) 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.
YES,South Korea is not a developed country. The World Fact Book IS correct BOOK.hey,korean!PLEASE DONT conceal the fact.-- Kesuida ( talk) 07:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE STOP KOREAN POV.-- Kesuida ( talk) 07:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Not all developing countries are classified as failed states. There are three classes of countries: 1) Developed Countries, 2) Developing Countries, and 3) Undeveloped Countries. The third catagory is called Failed States. There are leading emerging developing countries like China, India, Brazil, South Africa who are part of the G-20 (major economies) and G8+5 (Industrialized countries and leading emerging economies). Svr014 ( talk) 14:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.
The link worked well now...Good job... Svr014 ( talk) 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.
first of all CIA is not international nor economic organization, it is american political organization. so why put so much emphasis?? IMF, world bank, UN, OECD they are all international organization. if u guys want to put emphasis on cia, then let's put the same emphasis to other organizations of certain countires. let's insert mossad's developed country list(if they have one) will u people put same emphasis on Mossad's developed country list as u did to CIA's??? what is the difference between CIA and Mossad? second, cia's developed country list is outdated.never been updated since it is released. why is south africa and turkey developed and singapore and south korea isn't?? explain this to me becuase i don't understand. why don't u people get developed country list in 4th century and 11the century and place them in this article?? i can tell u some... roman empire, persia, tartars..... thirdly, 'some people' seem to ignore all the other datas and only emphasize CIA's list. why is that?? i think becuase it is the only list where South Korea is not classified as developed country. come on~~ grow up Hawkchoi ( talk) 10:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
South Korea is a developed country?? FUNNY. This article [1] is KOREAN POV. -- Kesuida ( talk) 06:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
well this is common sense to every one but it seems certain people don't have common sense. do not edit without having a debate. ask for debate and back ur claims up with datas. for example Keisuda just writes down 1 line,1 line of his personal opinion. well ur personal opinion means nothing, if u want to persuade someone prove that ur opinion is correct. if u can't debate properly just don't open ur mouth Hawkchoi ( talk) 12:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
it is funny really. look what certain people are doing to the article. these people just pick on south korea. look at the quality of life article. the number changed from 30 countries to 29countries. isn't 30 more natural than 29??. plus we have already talked about all these IBRD and CIA stuff. so why do u people suddenly bring it up???? very strange. what were u guys doing when we were having discussion about these matters????? CIA developed country list don't include hongkong singapore south korea taiwan. but these people are only concered in kicking south korea out, no need to mention most of them are japanese. do u people don't know how to debate? or just avoiding it because u know that u can't win??04:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi ( talk • contribs)
Top-- is more strange standard than set a standard index point. and I don't think CIA DC list is not useful. DC is different from DC list, that featuring other factors not only in economical factors. 61.99.38.227 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC).
It is simply because South Korea is not a developed country. It seems to me that some editors have been trying to cherry picking edits for Korea. FTSE does not classified Korea as a developed country. [2] [3] NYT regards Korea as a developing country. [4] Korea is not even a developed market. [5]. Look at these South Korean newspaper articles. Even Koreans themselves do not say 'Korea is a developed country'. [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Oda Mari ( talk) 04:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where anyone has provided a reliable source which criticizes the report. It's all Wikipedia editors, who have no standing as reliable sources, using loaded terms such as "so-called". As I told Tnaniua, all he has to do is to find a reliable source, and all of this would be settled. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[ [14]]-- Kingj123 ( talk) 15:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
what report is wrong?-- Kingj123 ( talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
oh.. I see , my apologies... CIA list.
Here is the updated list for developed and devveloping countries Cheers everyone! [ [17]] -- Kingj123 ( talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting... this time South Korea is not listed in either of the list.
God knows what the CIA is up to. Pds0101 ( talk) 14:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
According to Ode Mari user, South Korea is cut off from QoL list "simply because South Korea is not a developed country" for him? This is a false logic: the QoL list justifies whether the countries are developed, not the other way around.
For instance, I personally don't think that UK is developed enough, however, that does give me the right to shorten up the list so that UK is removed.
I also find the cut off mark very odd. 6.917?? What is so significant about this value?-- Kingj123 ( talk) 18:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The danger of sourcing government agency websites is that the specific nation's interests may distort the information provided. As we all know, US government sources are fairly "reliable" for the most part, however CIA is not an appropriate source when we are dealing with developed countries. Neutral and reliable sources would be IMF or World Bank which are organizations recognized by the international community; these sources provide a neutral overview of the nations around the world, and treat each country on an equal scale. No country has an authority to define which country is developed or not, it is an issue the international community has to solve. -- Kingj123 ( talk) 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
1. "High income" and "loan eligibility" are separate concepts.
2. In addition,I do not see "the source stating" the fact that the lending eligibility does not help classifing the developed or developing countries within the high income category. A plausible and reliable explanation from the World Bank or other well known organization is needed.
3. With North Korea as an example, there are other factors that affects the eligibility for loans, not just the developness of the country. I am open to counterclaims as stated in the source.-- Kingj123 ( talk) 18:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Per the discussion on ANI, I have protected this page for 1 week. Please propose any changes on this talk page and come to an agreement. Thank you. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The template {{ lists of countries}} in undergoing deletion. Please replace it (at the bottom of the article) by the following relevant successor templates:
-- Cybercobra ( talk) 09:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The protection has been imposed for over a month, editing ability must be restored.-- Sum ( talk) 18:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
All these four countries should be in IMF advanced economy list or some of the other lists, isn't it? Jimm36 ( talk) 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Change [[:Image:UN Human Development Report 2007 (2).png|thumb|right|320px|World map showing the Human Development Index as presented by the United Nations in 2007.]] to [[:File:UN Human Development Report 2008.svg|thumb|right|320px|World map showing the Human Development Index as presented by the United Nations in 2008.]]
This will change the old map, based on HDI data from 2007, with the latest 2008 map (
File:UN Human Development Report 2008.svg).
Thanks, cflm ( talk) 13:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Change
|-
| align="left" |
San Marino || bgcolor="#FFA07A" | NO || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || 2
to
|-
| align="left" |
San Marino || bgcolor="#FFA07A" | NO || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || 3. --
211.179.112.25 (
talk)
04:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
{{
editprotected}}
Change country name (Bahamas, The → The Bahamas) and Change references (<ref>[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/groups.htm World Economic Outlook], [[International Monetary Fund]], October 2008, second paragraph, line 9-10.</ref> → <ref>[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/weodata/groups.htm World Economic Outlook], [[International Monetary Fund]], April 2009, second paragraph, line 9-10.</ref>). And Change name (East Asian Tiger → Four Asian Tigers) and delete references. And set "HDI≥0.9" for The Bahamas to "NO" per the "Human Development Index" section. Thank you. --
211.179.112.25 (
talk)
14:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This list
to change this.
and This list
Legend | |||
---|---|---|---|
HIE OECD | High-income OECD members | CIA AE | CIA's The World Factbook, Advanced economies |
IMF AE | International Monetary Fund, Advanced economies | WB HIE | World Bank, High-income economies [1] |
HDI≥0.9 | Human Development Index at or above 0.9 [2] | QoL Top 30 | Quality-of-life index Top 30 countries |
Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
![]() |
NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | 4 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | 4 |
![]() |
NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | 4 |
![]() |
YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | 3 |
![]() |
NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | YES | 3 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | YES | NO | 3 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | — | — | 3 |
![]() |
YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | 3 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | — | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() ![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | — | — | — | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
to change this.
Legend | |||
---|---|---|---|
HIE OECD | High-income OECD members | CIA AE | CIA's The World Factbook, Advanced economies |
IMF AE | International Monetary Fund, Advanced economies | WB HIE | World Bank, High-income economies [1] |
HDI≥0.9 | Human Development Index at or above 0.9 [3] | QoL Top 30 | Quality-of-life index Top 30 countries |
Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
![]() |
NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | 4 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | 4 |
![]() |
NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | 4 |
![]() |
YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | 3 |
![]() |
NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | YES | 3 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | YES | NO | 3 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | — | — | 3 |
![]() |
YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | 3 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | — | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() ![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | — | — | — | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.179.112.25 ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 1 September 2009
{{
editprotected}}
This
Legend | |||
---|---|---|---|
HIE OECD | High-income OECD members | CIA AE | CIA's The World Factbook, Advanced economies |
IMF AE | International Monetary Fund, Advanced economies | WB HIE | World Bank, High-income economies [1] |
HDI≥0.9 | Human Development Index at or above 0.9 [4] | QoL Top 30 | Quality-of-life index Top 30 countries |
Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
change this.
Legend | |||
---|---|---|---|
HIE OECD | High-income OECD members | CIA AE | CIA's The World Factbook, Advanced economies |
IMF AE | International Monetary Fund, Advanced economies | WB HIE | World Bank, High-income economies [1] |
HDI≥0.9 | Human Development Index at or above 0.9 [5] | QoL Top 30 | Quality-of-life index Top 30 countries |
Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
-- W950712 ( talk) 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This
Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
change to this.
Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
And This
change to this.
-- You Can 《 talk · Contributions》 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Give one example of some organization alphabetizing "The Bahamas" under "T" for "The". Until then, I see no reason why the normal English convention of ignoring "the" when alphabetizing should not be adhered to. -- Cybercobra (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged {{ Dubious}} on India, in the table in "Summary" section. Since as per, article India, HDI is ~0.612, while in table it is marked "Yes" for HDI>=0.9, also as per article Quality-of-life_index, India ranks 73, but in cloumn "QoL Top 30", it is marked "Yes". Vikrant42 ( talk) 15:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There are too many sockpuppets editing this article. There are users that are being solely created to edit this article ( example). This has to be stopped. Pristino ( talk) 14:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Turkey is classified a high income,developed and newly industrialized country.Turkey is a member of G-20 Major economies.
GNI (per capital) is 13.135 $ (over 11.000 $). Human Development Index is High and over 0.800 For the source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country
( talk) 00.32, 3 November 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC).
Albanian GDP is $6.500 AND Colombian GDP is $8.000..Turkish GDP iS $13.168....(visit wikipedia "country pages")-- Cengiz ergun1987 ( talk) 20:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Section was inconsistent with link to Worldank's data. I've corrected this (removed Turkey which is not on the list of high-income OECD members from link and added Poland which is), I've corrected wrong numbers too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.67.228 ( talk) 11:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed problems with the World Bank pages. I keep on having various versions of the WB's pages.
It is interesting to notice that there are other changes in the list. Except Poland, Latvia is also a new in the High Income Econony. Perhaps it would be good to edit the high income economy section as well!? Regards, Roman
Under the Quality-of-Life section, the Singapore flag is paired with the name Uruguay. Please change this as I am not sure if its Singapore or Uruguay that is supposed to come in this section... Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.80.62 ( talk) 10:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I have put back an early QoL list with a ref that looks better. Is it OK? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 11:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
The International Living Quality-of-life list looks very strange to me. Is this organisation a reliable source? Uruguay/Namibia/Grenada higher QoL than Singapore ( Msrasnw ( talk) 11:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
Here's a couple of "guiding principles" to whoever tries to include International Living as a source: The IL website is on Wikipedia's SPAM list!. This means that no links from that website should be referenced in any Wikipedia article. Another is that when you go to the IL website, there is a link to how they came up with their QLI figures for the different nations. They explicitly state that when those well researched figures did not jive "with their experience", then they opted for "their experience" over the solid research figures. Hype site — 'nuff said. Avionics1980 ( talk) 22:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
How about we include both the Newsweek and Economist rankings? The Economist's index includes factors (e.g. climate) that are important to quality of life yet not included in the Newsweek ranking, which is narrower in scope. Athenean ( talk) 12:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I have deleted this section on the grounds that the World Bank "High Income Economies are classified as the countries with a Gross National Income per capita of $12,196 or more in 2009. According to the United Nations definition, high income countries may also be developing countries. Thus, a high income country may be classified as either developed or developing. Because at this article we deal ONLY with developed countries, I suggest that we keep lists which present ONLY the developed countries. If we include lists that can include developing AND developed countries then the meaning of the article is lost and the reader becomes confused. Avionics1980 ( talk) 15:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
HDI rankings must be ammended accordingly to reflect 2010 HDR: [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avionics1980 ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is australia there, they are NOT a developed country, most australians are poor and live in slums. India should be on the list as we are one of the most developed countries in the world and very very rich is everyone, in australia they are very very poor nand racist goons but Indians are developed and rich, india should be high on this list, i intend to do it myself in the coming hours. Whoeever does reverts my change is a vandal and racist -- Gargabook ( talk) 01:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello there. I believe this map:
> 0.784 (Very High) 0.677–0.784 (High) 0.488–0.676 (Medium) | < 0.488 (Low) no data |
is superior to this map:
Very High High Medium | Low data unavailable |
The blue to pink to red color scheme is very clear to understand in the first map. In the second map, however, the lowest category (low HDI) is nearly black, completely defeating visual perception and understanding. Both maps use the official categories used by the UNDP in its latest 2010 report to classify countries in very high, high, medium and low groups. What does everyone think? Which map serves the article best?
Pristino (
talk)
04:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
please fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.58.191 ( talk) 16:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure whether it is just me who finds this hard to understand: "Many countries listed by IMF or[10] CIA as "advanced" (as of 2009), possess an HDI over 0.788 (as of 2010). Many countries[11] possessing an HDI of 0.788 and over (as of 2010), are also listed by IMF or CIA as "advanced" (as of 2009). " Is this a tautology? Also, I do not understand how a country can be classified as, "advanced (as of 2009) by having an HDI over 0.788 (as of 2010)" either I misunderstand this, or the phrase needs editing or further explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.240.199 ( talk) 00:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
San Marino is not in the referenced list, though I am not arguing that it is not developed. If it is included, then the list is of 34 economies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.111.142 ( talk) 13:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The CIA list includes Holy See. However, this is not consistent with the Wikipedia article on Holy See, which does not identify the Holy See as a country. The flag used for Holy See in this article is, according the Vatican City article, is the flag of the Vatican City State. -- 211.25.129.2 ( talk) 10:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
why is turkey a developed country in some parts but not in another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.79.100 ( talk) 22:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I am from China, and I meet a girl from Australia. We discuss the broadband topic, our broadband in China is only 5 dollars for unlimited internet access, but their broadband for unlimited internet access is 150 dollars. So I subscribed to unlimited internet access for 5 dollars in China, she subscribed 50 dollars limited internet access broadband. I invite her to watch a movie, she refused just because her internet is limited. So How do you define the developed and developing countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.123.200.135 ( talk) 22:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | 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 |
CIA's list of "developed countries" is the authoritative "THE list of developed countries." Now, some people might not like the list, but the list is correct, and is THE list. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should not prevent people from accessing this information, but rather provide this information. Whether to agree with the list or not depends on the reader. But the list has to be there since it is THE list. Excluding that list is like writing a page about US states, but not including the names of the states since some people "believe" (yes, "believe") that one or more of the states should not be in the list. If Wikipedia wants to keep its credibility, the list should be put back. ~~# Heyyaaa (I don't know how to sign my name)
The official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research states that "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." If this list was merely created by some nobody wikipedian from the lists of World Bank, IMF and CIA (none of which is properly cited in the section btw) and is not supported by any credible authority as a whole, then it is an original research material that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It should be replaced by the original 3 lists with proper citation. -- Saintjust 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors cannot put toghther a comphrensive list. All we can do is list the countries certain organizations list a "high income" or advanced. It is simply not up to us to decide whether a country is developed or not - especially since there isn't a concerete definition. Is Macao developed? We can't answer that question with a yes or no. What we can do is identify it as country that has been classified as high income by the World Bank. Whether or not that makes Macao a developed country is up to the reader to decide. The list is OR becuase it is an attempt to decide which country is and isn't developed -something we simply can't decide on WP. I have started replacing the list with seperate lists that reflect the World Bank and IMF classification - I'll add one for the CIA later. Regards, Signature brendel 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I checked up with important lists one of which is from the CIA and found that South Korea (SK) is an advanced economy but not a developed country. Find the list at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html.
It is very inappropriate to list SK as a developed country. The classification 'advanced economies' clearly mentions that it includes developing countries in Asia and Europe.
Svr014 ( talk) 15:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)NICSupporter
The term advanced economy is used differently than the term developed country by some arms of the US and other Western governments. There are 28 advanced economies of which South Korea and Singapore are part of. But there are 34 developed countries (DCs) of which only the G7 countries and 27 other countries are part of. Look at the source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html for more information... Svr014 ( talk) 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.
YES,South Korea is not a developed country. The World Fact Book IS correct BOOK.hey,korean!PLEASE DONT conceal the fact.-- Kesuida ( talk) 07:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE STOP KOREAN POV.-- Kesuida ( talk) 07:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Not all developing countries are classified as failed states. There are three classes of countries: 1) Developed Countries, 2) Developing Countries, and 3) Undeveloped Countries. The third catagory is called Failed States. There are leading emerging developing countries like China, India, Brazil, South Africa who are part of the G-20 (major economies) and G8+5 (Industrialized countries and leading emerging economies). Svr014 ( talk) 14:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.
The link worked well now...Good job... Svr014 ( talk) 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.
first of all CIA is not international nor economic organization, it is american political organization. so why put so much emphasis?? IMF, world bank, UN, OECD they are all international organization. if u guys want to put emphasis on cia, then let's put the same emphasis to other organizations of certain countires. let's insert mossad's developed country list(if they have one) will u people put same emphasis on Mossad's developed country list as u did to CIA's??? what is the difference between CIA and Mossad? second, cia's developed country list is outdated.never been updated since it is released. why is south africa and turkey developed and singapore and south korea isn't?? explain this to me becuase i don't understand. why don't u people get developed country list in 4th century and 11the century and place them in this article?? i can tell u some... roman empire, persia, tartars..... thirdly, 'some people' seem to ignore all the other datas and only emphasize CIA's list. why is that?? i think becuase it is the only list where South Korea is not classified as developed country. come on~~ grow up Hawkchoi ( talk) 10:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
South Korea is a developed country?? FUNNY. This article [1] is KOREAN POV. -- Kesuida ( talk) 06:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
well this is common sense to every one but it seems certain people don't have common sense. do not edit without having a debate. ask for debate and back ur claims up with datas. for example Keisuda just writes down 1 line,1 line of his personal opinion. well ur personal opinion means nothing, if u want to persuade someone prove that ur opinion is correct. if u can't debate properly just don't open ur mouth Hawkchoi ( talk) 12:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
it is funny really. look what certain people are doing to the article. these people just pick on south korea. look at the quality of life article. the number changed from 30 countries to 29countries. isn't 30 more natural than 29??. plus we have already talked about all these IBRD and CIA stuff. so why do u people suddenly bring it up???? very strange. what were u guys doing when we were having discussion about these matters????? CIA developed country list don't include hongkong singapore south korea taiwan. but these people are only concered in kicking south korea out, no need to mention most of them are japanese. do u people don't know how to debate? or just avoiding it because u know that u can't win??04:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi ( talk • contribs)
Top-- is more strange standard than set a standard index point. and I don't think CIA DC list is not useful. DC is different from DC list, that featuring other factors not only in economical factors. 61.99.38.227 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC).
It is simply because South Korea is not a developed country. It seems to me that some editors have been trying to cherry picking edits for Korea. FTSE does not classified Korea as a developed country. [2] [3] NYT regards Korea as a developing country. [4] Korea is not even a developed market. [5]. Look at these South Korean newspaper articles. Even Koreans themselves do not say 'Korea is a developed country'. [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Oda Mari ( talk) 04:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where anyone has provided a reliable source which criticizes the report. It's all Wikipedia editors, who have no standing as reliable sources, using loaded terms such as "so-called". As I told Tnaniua, all he has to do is to find a reliable source, and all of this would be settled. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[ [14]]-- Kingj123 ( talk) 15:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
what report is wrong?-- Kingj123 ( talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
oh.. I see , my apologies... CIA list.
Here is the updated list for developed and devveloping countries Cheers everyone! [ [17]] -- Kingj123 ( talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting... this time South Korea is not listed in either of the list.
God knows what the CIA is up to. Pds0101 ( talk) 14:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
According to Ode Mari user, South Korea is cut off from QoL list "simply because South Korea is not a developed country" for him? This is a false logic: the QoL list justifies whether the countries are developed, not the other way around.
For instance, I personally don't think that UK is developed enough, however, that does give me the right to shorten up the list so that UK is removed.
I also find the cut off mark very odd. 6.917?? What is so significant about this value?-- Kingj123 ( talk) 18:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The danger of sourcing government agency websites is that the specific nation's interests may distort the information provided. As we all know, US government sources are fairly "reliable" for the most part, however CIA is not an appropriate source when we are dealing with developed countries. Neutral and reliable sources would be IMF or World Bank which are organizations recognized by the international community; these sources provide a neutral overview of the nations around the world, and treat each country on an equal scale. No country has an authority to define which country is developed or not, it is an issue the international community has to solve. -- Kingj123 ( talk) 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
1. "High income" and "loan eligibility" are separate concepts.
2. In addition,I do not see "the source stating" the fact that the lending eligibility does not help classifing the developed or developing countries within the high income category. A plausible and reliable explanation from the World Bank or other well known organization is needed.
3. With North Korea as an example, there are other factors that affects the eligibility for loans, not just the developness of the country. I am open to counterclaims as stated in the source.-- Kingj123 ( talk) 18:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Per the discussion on ANI, I have protected this page for 1 week. Please propose any changes on this talk page and come to an agreement. Thank you. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The template {{ lists of countries}} in undergoing deletion. Please replace it (at the bottom of the article) by the following relevant successor templates:
-- Cybercobra ( talk) 09:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The protection has been imposed for over a month, editing ability must be restored.-- Sum ( talk) 18:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
All these four countries should be in IMF advanced economy list or some of the other lists, isn't it? Jimm36 ( talk) 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Change [[:Image:UN Human Development Report 2007 (2).png|thumb|right|320px|World map showing the Human Development Index as presented by the United Nations in 2007.]] to [[:File:UN Human Development Report 2008.svg|thumb|right|320px|World map showing the Human Development Index as presented by the United Nations in 2008.]]
This will change the old map, based on HDI data from 2007, with the latest 2008 map (
File:UN Human Development Report 2008.svg).
Thanks, cflm ( talk) 13:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Change
|-
| align="left" |
San Marino || bgcolor="#FFA07A" | NO || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || 2
to
|-
| align="left" |
San Marino || bgcolor="#FFA07A" | NO || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || bgcolor="#98FB98" | YES || data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || data-sort-value="" style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || 3. --
211.179.112.25 (
talk)
04:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
{{
editprotected}}
Change country name (Bahamas, The → The Bahamas) and Change references (<ref>[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/groups.htm World Economic Outlook], [[International Monetary Fund]], October 2008, second paragraph, line 9-10.</ref> → <ref>[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/weodata/groups.htm World Economic Outlook], [[International Monetary Fund]], April 2009, second paragraph, line 9-10.</ref>). And Change name (East Asian Tiger → Four Asian Tigers) and delete references. And set "HDI≥0.9" for The Bahamas to "NO" per the "Human Development Index" section. Thank you. --
211.179.112.25 (
talk)
14:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This list
to change this.
and This list
Legend | |||
---|---|---|---|
HIE OECD | High-income OECD members | CIA AE | CIA's The World Factbook, Advanced economies |
IMF AE | International Monetary Fund, Advanced economies | WB HIE | World Bank, High-income economies [1] |
HDI≥0.9 | Human Development Index at or above 0.9 [2] | QoL Top 30 | Quality-of-life index Top 30 countries |
Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
![]() |
NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | 4 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | 4 |
![]() |
NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | 4 |
![]() |
YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | 3 |
![]() |
NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | YES | 3 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | YES | NO | 3 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | — | — | 3 |
![]() |
YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | 3 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | — | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() ![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | — | — | — | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
to change this.
Legend | |||
---|---|---|---|
HIE OECD | High-income OECD members | CIA AE | CIA's The World Factbook, Advanced economies |
IMF AE | International Monetary Fund, Advanced economies | WB HIE | World Bank, High-income economies [1] |
HDI≥0.9 | Human Development Index at or above 0.9 [3] | QoL Top 30 | Quality-of-life index Top 30 countries |
Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 6 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | 5 |
![]() |
NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | 4 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | 4 |
![]() |
NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | 4 |
![]() |
YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | 3 |
![]() |
NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | YES | 3 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | YES | NO | 3 |
![]() |
NO | YES | YES | YES | — | — | 3 |
![]() |
YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | 3 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | — | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | YES | — | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | 2 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() ![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | YES | — | — | — | — | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
![]() |
NO | NO | — | YES | — | NO | 1 |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.179.112.25 ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 1 September 2009
{{
editprotected}}
This
Legend | |||
---|---|---|---|
HIE OECD | High-income OECD members | CIA AE | CIA's The World Factbook, Advanced economies |
IMF AE | International Monetary Fund, Advanced economies | WB HIE | World Bank, High-income economies [1] |
HDI≥0.9 | Human Development Index at or above 0.9 [4] | QoL Top 30 | Quality-of-life index Top 30 countries |
Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
change this.
Legend | |||
---|---|---|---|
HIE OECD | High-income OECD members | CIA AE | CIA's The World Factbook, Advanced economies |
IMF AE | International Monetary Fund, Advanced economies | WB HIE | World Bank, High-income economies [1] |
HDI≥0.9 | Human Development Index at or above 0.9 [5] | QoL Top 30 | Quality-of-life index Top 30 countries |
Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
-- W950712 ( talk) 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This
Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
change to this.
Countries | HIE OECD | CIA AE | IMF AE | WB HIE | HDI≥0.9 | QoL Top 30 | All |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 1 |
And This
change to this.
-- You Can 《 talk · Contributions》 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Give one example of some organization alphabetizing "The Bahamas" under "T" for "The". Until then, I see no reason why the normal English convention of ignoring "the" when alphabetizing should not be adhered to. -- Cybercobra (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged {{ Dubious}} on India, in the table in "Summary" section. Since as per, article India, HDI is ~0.612, while in table it is marked "Yes" for HDI>=0.9, also as per article Quality-of-life_index, India ranks 73, but in cloumn "QoL Top 30", it is marked "Yes". Vikrant42 ( talk) 15:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There are too many sockpuppets editing this article. There are users that are being solely created to edit this article ( example). This has to be stopped. Pristino ( talk) 14:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Turkey is classified a high income,developed and newly industrialized country.Turkey is a member of G-20 Major economies.
GNI (per capital) is 13.135 $ (over 11.000 $). Human Development Index is High and over 0.800 For the source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country
( talk) 00.32, 3 November 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC).
Albanian GDP is $6.500 AND Colombian GDP is $8.000..Turkish GDP iS $13.168....(visit wikipedia "country pages")-- Cengiz ergun1987 ( talk) 20:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Section was inconsistent with link to Worldank's data. I've corrected this (removed Turkey which is not on the list of high-income OECD members from link and added Poland which is), I've corrected wrong numbers too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.67.228 ( talk) 11:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed problems with the World Bank pages. I keep on having various versions of the WB's pages.
It is interesting to notice that there are other changes in the list. Except Poland, Latvia is also a new in the High Income Econony. Perhaps it would be good to edit the high income economy section as well!? Regards, Roman
Under the Quality-of-Life section, the Singapore flag is paired with the name Uruguay. Please change this as I am not sure if its Singapore or Uruguay that is supposed to come in this section... Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.80.62 ( talk) 10:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I have put back an early QoL list with a ref that looks better. Is it OK? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 11:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
The International Living Quality-of-life list looks very strange to me. Is this organisation a reliable source? Uruguay/Namibia/Grenada higher QoL than Singapore ( Msrasnw ( talk) 11:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
Here's a couple of "guiding principles" to whoever tries to include International Living as a source: The IL website is on Wikipedia's SPAM list!. This means that no links from that website should be referenced in any Wikipedia article. Another is that when you go to the IL website, there is a link to how they came up with their QLI figures for the different nations. They explicitly state that when those well researched figures did not jive "with their experience", then they opted for "their experience" over the solid research figures. Hype site — 'nuff said. Avionics1980 ( talk) 22:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
How about we include both the Newsweek and Economist rankings? The Economist's index includes factors (e.g. climate) that are important to quality of life yet not included in the Newsweek ranking, which is narrower in scope. Athenean ( talk) 12:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I have deleted this section on the grounds that the World Bank "High Income Economies are classified as the countries with a Gross National Income per capita of $12,196 or more in 2009. According to the United Nations definition, high income countries may also be developing countries. Thus, a high income country may be classified as either developed or developing. Because at this article we deal ONLY with developed countries, I suggest that we keep lists which present ONLY the developed countries. If we include lists that can include developing AND developed countries then the meaning of the article is lost and the reader becomes confused. Avionics1980 ( talk) 15:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
HDI rankings must be ammended accordingly to reflect 2010 HDR: [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avionics1980 ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is australia there, they are NOT a developed country, most australians are poor and live in slums. India should be on the list as we are one of the most developed countries in the world and very very rich is everyone, in australia they are very very poor nand racist goons but Indians are developed and rich, india should be high on this list, i intend to do it myself in the coming hours. Whoeever does reverts my change is a vandal and racist -- Gargabook ( talk) 01:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello there. I believe this map:
> 0.784 (Very High) 0.677–0.784 (High) 0.488–0.676 (Medium) | < 0.488 (Low) no data |
is superior to this map:
Very High High Medium | Low data unavailable |
The blue to pink to red color scheme is very clear to understand in the first map. In the second map, however, the lowest category (low HDI) is nearly black, completely defeating visual perception and understanding. Both maps use the official categories used by the UNDP in its latest 2010 report to classify countries in very high, high, medium and low groups. What does everyone think? Which map serves the article best?
Pristino (
talk)
04:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
please fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.58.191 ( talk) 16:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure whether it is just me who finds this hard to understand: "Many countries listed by IMF or[10] CIA as "advanced" (as of 2009), possess an HDI over 0.788 (as of 2010). Many countries[11] possessing an HDI of 0.788 and over (as of 2010), are also listed by IMF or CIA as "advanced" (as of 2009). " Is this a tautology? Also, I do not understand how a country can be classified as, "advanced (as of 2009) by having an HDI over 0.788 (as of 2010)" either I misunderstand this, or the phrase needs editing or further explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.240.199 ( talk) 00:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
San Marino is not in the referenced list, though I am not arguing that it is not developed. If it is included, then the list is of 34 economies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.111.142 ( talk) 13:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The CIA list includes Holy See. However, this is not consistent with the Wikipedia article on Holy See, which does not identify the Holy See as a country. The flag used for Holy See in this article is, according the Vatican City article, is the flag of the Vatican City State. -- 211.25.129.2 ( talk) 10:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
why is turkey a developed country in some parts but not in another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.79.100 ( talk) 22:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I am from China, and I meet a girl from Australia. We discuss the broadband topic, our broadband in China is only 5 dollars for unlimited internet access, but their broadband for unlimited internet access is 150 dollars. So I subscribed to unlimited internet access for 5 dollars in China, she subscribed 50 dollars limited internet access broadband. I invite her to watch a movie, she refused just because her internet is limited. So How do you define the developed and developing countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.123.200.135 ( talk) 22:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |