These countries are advanced economy. But not developed. They are advanced developing country. -- 211.179.112.45 ( talk) 11:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
And the Czech Republic now in the DAC (Development Assistance Committee) group in OECD, along with other 24 states. Good to see how the post-communist trauma slowly but gradually disappears and vanishes... I hope the politically incorrect view of CZ as the developing country is gone. We are not in 90-ies, guys!
No, these ex-Soviet bloc Eastern European countries are very poor and underdeveloped, including Poland, which is still very poor, technologically underdeveloped and heavily reliant on aid money coming from the rich and developed Western European countries of the European Union like United Kingdom, France, Austria and Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B044:B07:4489:7885:8E31:DBDA ( talk) 05:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I believe we should follow the Human Development Report model and list only the countries in the top quartile for both Newsweek and Economist rankings.
If anybody has a good reason to show the Top 30 countries of each list instead of the top quartile, please reply here. Cheers. Pristino ( talk) 07:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Newsweek explains how its total index is calculated, as well as how Quality of Life is calculated:
HOOTmag ( talk) 00:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
You can all stop it. Nobody is in the right in an edit war, the mere act of participating is wrong. If you can't resolve this dispute here, look into dispute resolution. Further edit warring after protection expires can and will lead to all edit warriors being blocked. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I was just wondering if anyone realized that the rank order is incorrect, as in, the countries are not even close to being in the order Newsweek put them in. I don't know how to fix that sort of thing, but it kind of seems like someone should. Thanks, Dreamer222105 ( talk) 00:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The tabular data in this article looks like it duplicates that in Human Development Index, and would probably be best removed from this article. Bazza ( talk) 15:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that the Economist's index contains components that do not define the quality of life of a developed country. Here are the components I found irrelevant:
1. Weather. Their "climate and geography" category measures weather as part of the index. This suggests that countries which are warmer or colder are more developed, which is misleading.
2. Church attendance. Their "community life" category gives a plus to a country with high church attendance, which is Christian-centric, highly discriminating and not taking into account the diverse religions and cultures around the world.
3. Political part. Their "political freedom" category measures civil liberty, which while can be an indicator, is not included in this article. We should be including the
Democracy Index and other freedom indexes if this was the case.
In addition, this index has never been updated since 2005, over 6 years old as we are moving onto 2012 in a few days. The world has changed a lot since then and many countries have made rapid progresses in development, hence this index is now inaccurate. For these reasons I have removed this outdated and misleading index. Purpleflights ( talk) 22:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of what you have noticed, the economist quality of life index is a well respected index as far as quality of life is concerned. Since 2005 is the latest "version" of this index we don't really have to care about this. On the other hand I have noticed that you continuously do changes in newsweeks index contrary to concensous as per discussion. I advise you to stop doing this. Thanks. Nochoje ( talk) 21:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Nochoje is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Other than that though, the Economist's 2005 index is superseded by a much more recent Where-to-be-born Index published for 2013. The original 2005 index is gone at Wikipedia because obviously, you can't be using a decade old index, which would be highly misleading. And the folks at the Economist clearly agreed with that and published an updated one indeed. I'm putting my comments here because there are some IPs coming out of nowhere that are trying to put back this defunct list - Two completely different IPs that have no edit histories doing nothing but immediately emulating the indefinitely blocked Nochoje? It sounds like we are having sockpuppets again.. Massyparcer ( talk) 15:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
today it's 2012. so dont come with sources by 2004 or something. Turkeys market are developed and it's a developed country. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_developed_country_list and the second thing is that greece and portugal are often claimed in the european news as developing countries. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_sovereign-debt_crisis 88.64.182.125 ( talk) 11:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Turkey is still an upper middle income country just like Russia; they have to be high income at last Nlivataye ( talk) 08:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Can someone figure out the Estonian data for that list? Estonia is an OECD member, but the disposable wage list doesnt display the country. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaanMatti ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I found really authentic links of CIA List of Developed Countries as well as List of Less Developed Countries here:
1. List of Developed Countries ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html#D).
2. List of Less Developed Countries ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html#L).
Hope you all find these links useful and you all will clarify with some of your misunderstandings about some of the countries that are listed here as developed countries.
Good luck, and please don't fight. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.193.170 ( talk) 22:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I tried to confirm Canada's supposed "648" plunge in average wages, but could not. Could somebody please direct me to this data? I find the current Canadian data hard to believe as Canada's average wages are slightly higher than the US average and Canadian wage growth (due to Canada's stronger resource based economy) has been higher than US wage growth in recent years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcolony ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, even though Hong Kong scientifically is part of China, it has a very different economy, education system, health system and so on. But it seems that on these Wikipedia pages, some do not include Hong Kong in it. Also, the most maps about the surveys (sources) that have Hong Kong in it do not show Hong Kong as being different from the Mainland. Please get this issue fixed. Thank You, David . S 07:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Israel was in the Middle East last time checked. I don't think an entire country can just jump up and leave to another continent! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.118.128 ( talk) 22:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
January 3 added: powerful (should read: less powerful) at the beginning. I have a feeling that this is unnecessary at this point, since the whole text is about industrialization (not about power). So proposal: delete. Can anyone agree (and perform the edit)? Super48paul ( talk) 11:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone! The map of developing countries on Wikipedia shows countries that this article claims are developed. Saudi Arabia and Argentina are just two examples. Why the inconsistency? WACGuy ( talk) 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Developed country's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "UNDP2015":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a more recent issue of HDI numbers... the UN has published it. I think it might be more relevant if people placed these numbers instead? I'm not editing it though because I can't really figure out the editing box. It's confusing. Sorry. Also, I think a bit about which places have information about development might be good! Fireflamedancer ( talk) 21:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This page contained lists that did not classify countries as being developed vs non developed, which is the premise of the page. Lists on wages and Gallup incomw were deleted because they did not do this, are duplicates, and it opens the door to including other lists on the same subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
2011? Seriously? You have gotta be kidding me. It doesn't even include all the OECD countries. And you call those existing lists "inferior". As far as these lists are concerned, any list from a reliable source that is up-to-date can be included. The point of a developed country is primarily economic development - Yeah we can include life expectancy and such, but they aren't of high priority. Wikipedia has always been open to new entries and you are not the one to decide what goes on this article or not. The argument can be used equally on National Accounts - It only measures the average income - NOT the MEDIAN income, which is far more accurate. Gallup is the most reliable polling organization and a highly respected source, so I see no reason to remove it on grounds of "inaccuracy". Seems WP:OR to me. Any source material can stay so long as it qualifies as a reliable published source under WP:V. If you want to add or remove a list, you must get a consensus first - It's as simple as that. You must follow the Wikipedia editing rules. See WP:Consensus. Until you get consensus, this article will remain in the version before you started disrupting it. That's just how Wikipedia works. Please do not engage in an unnecessary edit war. If you think the Wikipedia consensus procedure is a joke, you should stop editing. Pizzamall ( talk) 15:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
French Guiana isn't highlighted on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:400:40A3:8417:5917:74DA:4230 ( talk) 07:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
In wikipedia should be written a new article about the concept od "' Advanced economy" that is different from the concept of "' Developed economy"'.People otherwise have no clear ideas. Kingofwoods ( talk) 03:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure about this but I think I will ask just in case; Developing_country is one of the articles that does this under the Definition heading, I did not see it in this article. It has the economic qualifications for a developed country but I don't see the qualifications based on birth rate, death rate and growth rate. I have a suspicion the HDI is completely explanatory with that, but the Developing_country article has that and a definition. Shouldn't the article be written to also allow a clear meaning to those who don't know what the Human Development Index is or don't want to look it up? Thanks, TroyLChainsington ( talk) 14:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Developed country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Please notice, that no country is defined as a "developed country" - by any international body. As quoted in the article, from the the United Nations Statistics Division: "There is no established convention for the designation of developed and developing countries or areas in the United Nations system".
Please notice also, that all lists recognized by international countries, are not lists of "countries by development", but rather lists of "countries by human development", or "countries by advancement", or "countries by level of income", and the like.
Please notice also, that "development" is not the same as "human development", nor have the "humanly developed countries" ever been defined as the "very high human development countries".
as far as concepts recognized by international bodies are concerned, our article "developed country" only indicates lists of countries ranked by close concepts (recognized by those bodies), e.g. "very high human development countries", as well as "advanced countries", "high income OECD countries", and the like.
HOTmag ( talk) 10:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Advanced and developed are different, in fact IMF classify them in different way.I've no time to waste with ignorant people.Better to check directly IMF than here. Study better.Or be in good feith. Austria is advanced and Russia not e. g..You seem to cover certain huge differences in this article.An ignorant can trust you , but not a culture guy.
79.19.186.41 (
talk)
14:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
It contains countries that are not listed in the cited UN data. Notably North Korea (listed in the UN report, but not given an HDI value) and Taiwan (not listed at all). An argument could be made to include estimated HDIs for these on the map, but the caption should specify that. Alternatively, Taiwan could just be given the same ranking as China (Republic of), in line with UN standard practice on the issue. There may be other similar issues, it may be worth comparing the map with the original list. Can someone with the skills/time to fix this do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.73.109 ( talk) 20:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Raulbeans and Lneal001: There's little point in continuing to revert each other. Instead of an edit war, why don't we hash out the issue on the talk page first? Perhaps we can start with stating your cases as to why you each think your version should be the one used? — AfroThundr ( u · t · c) 07:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This may not be the place to talk about this but I would suggest that the HDI map at the top of the page is switched back to its old colour scheme, which makes it easier to tell the different shades apart. Benica11 ( talk) 00:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think advocacy for Taiwan's recognition should be undertaken through this (or any other) article. El_C 06:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
On second thought, I have semiprotected the article. There is a limit to the amount of advocacy-driven disruption that we are willing to entertain on Wikipedia. El_C 06:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Link: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/WESP2019_BOOK-ANNEX-en.pdf
The map at the top of the article should omit "and the UN", since only the IMF now considers the three to be developing countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:116F:4002:AC00:4104:6EE3:4858:E3B8 ( talk) 09:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Source: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/
Why the UN still exclude the likes of Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan from their list of developed countries? I reckon they should update their list to at least include Singapore and South Korea. 2001:8003:9008:1301:80EC:5F72:1A40:4EE0 ( talk) 12:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Developed. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 5#Developed until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
gnu
57
16:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and Kuwait are all high income countries and a very high HDI with Qatar being among the top 5 richest by per capita income and UAE having a diversified economy and post industrial oil economy so whatever we think of these absolute to constitutional monarchies I think they are developed countries Nlivataye ( talk) 08:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
These countries are advanced economy. But not developed. They are advanced developing country. -- 211.179.112.45 ( talk) 11:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
And the Czech Republic now in the DAC (Development Assistance Committee) group in OECD, along with other 24 states. Good to see how the post-communist trauma slowly but gradually disappears and vanishes... I hope the politically incorrect view of CZ as the developing country is gone. We are not in 90-ies, guys!
No, these ex-Soviet bloc Eastern European countries are very poor and underdeveloped, including Poland, which is still very poor, technologically underdeveloped and heavily reliant on aid money coming from the rich and developed Western European countries of the European Union like United Kingdom, France, Austria and Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B044:B07:4489:7885:8E31:DBDA ( talk) 05:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I believe we should follow the Human Development Report model and list only the countries in the top quartile for both Newsweek and Economist rankings.
If anybody has a good reason to show the Top 30 countries of each list instead of the top quartile, please reply here. Cheers. Pristino ( talk) 07:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Newsweek explains how its total index is calculated, as well as how Quality of Life is calculated:
HOOTmag ( talk) 00:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
You can all stop it. Nobody is in the right in an edit war, the mere act of participating is wrong. If you can't resolve this dispute here, look into dispute resolution. Further edit warring after protection expires can and will lead to all edit warriors being blocked. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I was just wondering if anyone realized that the rank order is incorrect, as in, the countries are not even close to being in the order Newsweek put them in. I don't know how to fix that sort of thing, but it kind of seems like someone should. Thanks, Dreamer222105 ( talk) 00:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The tabular data in this article looks like it duplicates that in Human Development Index, and would probably be best removed from this article. Bazza ( talk) 15:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that the Economist's index contains components that do not define the quality of life of a developed country. Here are the components I found irrelevant:
1. Weather. Their "climate and geography" category measures weather as part of the index. This suggests that countries which are warmer or colder are more developed, which is misleading.
2. Church attendance. Their "community life" category gives a plus to a country with high church attendance, which is Christian-centric, highly discriminating and not taking into account the diverse religions and cultures around the world.
3. Political part. Their "political freedom" category measures civil liberty, which while can be an indicator, is not included in this article. We should be including the
Democracy Index and other freedom indexes if this was the case.
In addition, this index has never been updated since 2005, over 6 years old as we are moving onto 2012 in a few days. The world has changed a lot since then and many countries have made rapid progresses in development, hence this index is now inaccurate. For these reasons I have removed this outdated and misleading index. Purpleflights ( talk) 22:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of what you have noticed, the economist quality of life index is a well respected index as far as quality of life is concerned. Since 2005 is the latest "version" of this index we don't really have to care about this. On the other hand I have noticed that you continuously do changes in newsweeks index contrary to concensous as per discussion. I advise you to stop doing this. Thanks. Nochoje ( talk) 21:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Nochoje is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Other than that though, the Economist's 2005 index is superseded by a much more recent Where-to-be-born Index published for 2013. The original 2005 index is gone at Wikipedia because obviously, you can't be using a decade old index, which would be highly misleading. And the folks at the Economist clearly agreed with that and published an updated one indeed. I'm putting my comments here because there are some IPs coming out of nowhere that are trying to put back this defunct list - Two completely different IPs that have no edit histories doing nothing but immediately emulating the indefinitely blocked Nochoje? It sounds like we are having sockpuppets again.. Massyparcer ( talk) 15:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
today it's 2012. so dont come with sources by 2004 or something. Turkeys market are developed and it's a developed country. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_developed_country_list and the second thing is that greece and portugal are often claimed in the european news as developing countries. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_sovereign-debt_crisis 88.64.182.125 ( talk) 11:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Turkey is still an upper middle income country just like Russia; they have to be high income at last Nlivataye ( talk) 08:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Can someone figure out the Estonian data for that list? Estonia is an OECD member, but the disposable wage list doesnt display the country. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaanMatti ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I found really authentic links of CIA List of Developed Countries as well as List of Less Developed Countries here:
1. List of Developed Countries ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html#D).
2. List of Less Developed Countries ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html#L).
Hope you all find these links useful and you all will clarify with some of your misunderstandings about some of the countries that are listed here as developed countries.
Good luck, and please don't fight. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.193.170 ( talk) 22:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I tried to confirm Canada's supposed "648" plunge in average wages, but could not. Could somebody please direct me to this data? I find the current Canadian data hard to believe as Canada's average wages are slightly higher than the US average and Canadian wage growth (due to Canada's stronger resource based economy) has been higher than US wage growth in recent years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcolony ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, even though Hong Kong scientifically is part of China, it has a very different economy, education system, health system and so on. But it seems that on these Wikipedia pages, some do not include Hong Kong in it. Also, the most maps about the surveys (sources) that have Hong Kong in it do not show Hong Kong as being different from the Mainland. Please get this issue fixed. Thank You, David . S 07:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Israel was in the Middle East last time checked. I don't think an entire country can just jump up and leave to another continent! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.118.128 ( talk) 22:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
January 3 added: powerful (should read: less powerful) at the beginning. I have a feeling that this is unnecessary at this point, since the whole text is about industrialization (not about power). So proposal: delete. Can anyone agree (and perform the edit)? Super48paul ( talk) 11:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone! The map of developing countries on Wikipedia shows countries that this article claims are developed. Saudi Arabia and Argentina are just two examples. Why the inconsistency? WACGuy ( talk) 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Developed country's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "UNDP2015":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a more recent issue of HDI numbers... the UN has published it. I think it might be more relevant if people placed these numbers instead? I'm not editing it though because I can't really figure out the editing box. It's confusing. Sorry. Also, I think a bit about which places have information about development might be good! Fireflamedancer ( talk) 21:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This page contained lists that did not classify countries as being developed vs non developed, which is the premise of the page. Lists on wages and Gallup incomw were deleted because they did not do this, are duplicates, and it opens the door to including other lists on the same subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
2011? Seriously? You have gotta be kidding me. It doesn't even include all the OECD countries. And you call those existing lists "inferior". As far as these lists are concerned, any list from a reliable source that is up-to-date can be included. The point of a developed country is primarily economic development - Yeah we can include life expectancy and such, but they aren't of high priority. Wikipedia has always been open to new entries and you are not the one to decide what goes on this article or not. The argument can be used equally on National Accounts - It only measures the average income - NOT the MEDIAN income, which is far more accurate. Gallup is the most reliable polling organization and a highly respected source, so I see no reason to remove it on grounds of "inaccuracy". Seems WP:OR to me. Any source material can stay so long as it qualifies as a reliable published source under WP:V. If you want to add or remove a list, you must get a consensus first - It's as simple as that. You must follow the Wikipedia editing rules. See WP:Consensus. Until you get consensus, this article will remain in the version before you started disrupting it. That's just how Wikipedia works. Please do not engage in an unnecessary edit war. If you think the Wikipedia consensus procedure is a joke, you should stop editing. Pizzamall ( talk) 15:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
French Guiana isn't highlighted on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:400:40A3:8417:5917:74DA:4230 ( talk) 07:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
In wikipedia should be written a new article about the concept od "' Advanced economy" that is different from the concept of "' Developed economy"'.People otherwise have no clear ideas. Kingofwoods ( talk) 03:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure about this but I think I will ask just in case; Developing_country is one of the articles that does this under the Definition heading, I did not see it in this article. It has the economic qualifications for a developed country but I don't see the qualifications based on birth rate, death rate and growth rate. I have a suspicion the HDI is completely explanatory with that, but the Developing_country article has that and a definition. Shouldn't the article be written to also allow a clear meaning to those who don't know what the Human Development Index is or don't want to look it up? Thanks, TroyLChainsington ( talk) 14:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Developed country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Please notice, that no country is defined as a "developed country" - by any international body. As quoted in the article, from the the United Nations Statistics Division: "There is no established convention for the designation of developed and developing countries or areas in the United Nations system".
Please notice also, that all lists recognized by international countries, are not lists of "countries by development", but rather lists of "countries by human development", or "countries by advancement", or "countries by level of income", and the like.
Please notice also, that "development" is not the same as "human development", nor have the "humanly developed countries" ever been defined as the "very high human development countries".
as far as concepts recognized by international bodies are concerned, our article "developed country" only indicates lists of countries ranked by close concepts (recognized by those bodies), e.g. "very high human development countries", as well as "advanced countries", "high income OECD countries", and the like.
HOTmag ( talk) 10:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Advanced and developed are different, in fact IMF classify them in different way.I've no time to waste with ignorant people.Better to check directly IMF than here. Study better.Or be in good feith. Austria is advanced and Russia not e. g..You seem to cover certain huge differences in this article.An ignorant can trust you , but not a culture guy.
79.19.186.41 (
talk)
14:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
It contains countries that are not listed in the cited UN data. Notably North Korea (listed in the UN report, but not given an HDI value) and Taiwan (not listed at all). An argument could be made to include estimated HDIs for these on the map, but the caption should specify that. Alternatively, Taiwan could just be given the same ranking as China (Republic of), in line with UN standard practice on the issue. There may be other similar issues, it may be worth comparing the map with the original list. Can someone with the skills/time to fix this do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.73.109 ( talk) 20:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Raulbeans and Lneal001: There's little point in continuing to revert each other. Instead of an edit war, why don't we hash out the issue on the talk page first? Perhaps we can start with stating your cases as to why you each think your version should be the one used? — AfroThundr ( u · t · c) 07:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This may not be the place to talk about this but I would suggest that the HDI map at the top of the page is switched back to its old colour scheme, which makes it easier to tell the different shades apart. Benica11 ( talk) 00:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think advocacy for Taiwan's recognition should be undertaken through this (or any other) article. El_C 06:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
On second thought, I have semiprotected the article. There is a limit to the amount of advocacy-driven disruption that we are willing to entertain on Wikipedia. El_C 06:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Link: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/WESP2019_BOOK-ANNEX-en.pdf
The map at the top of the article should omit "and the UN", since only the IMF now considers the three to be developing countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:116F:4002:AC00:4104:6EE3:4858:E3B8 ( talk) 09:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Source: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/
Why the UN still exclude the likes of Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan from their list of developed countries? I reckon they should update their list to at least include Singapore and South Korea. 2001:8003:9008:1301:80EC:5F72:1A40:4EE0 ( talk) 12:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Developed. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 5#Developed until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
gnu
57
16:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and Kuwait are all high income countries and a very high HDI with Qatar being among the top 5 richest by per capita income and UAE having a diversified economy and post industrial oil economy so whatever we think of these absolute to constitutional monarchies I think they are developed countries Nlivataye ( talk) 08:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)