Talk:Developed country/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Early comments

• Please start new sections to this talk page when discussing new topics! Use <quote> ==topic==</quote> instead of adding lines. Thank you. PeregrineAY 21:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Also, if you're making comments to other people's comments, use an asterisk or a colon, to bullet or indent your comment, diffrentiating it from the others, instead of using lines everywhere. Also PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS. It would really help if someone wanted to talk to you personally and have a debate about whose country is better, on your own talk pages! PeregrineAY 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• One last comment: Cite your sources =D and make sure you've got your facts right from your source before listing them out here. Thanks. PeregrineAY 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT, possible article name change

The term Developed country is misguided. The terms Economically more developed country or More economically developed country (EMDC/MEDC) are more politically correct, and describe the situation more clearly. They are also terms modern geographers use, to avoid POV's as much as possible.

Shall I rename the page, and do a slight rewrite? Then maybe it will be clearer to point out which countries are to be named. This controversy about Developed country vs. developing country will also be mentioned in the rewrite.

I am also proposing the same idea on developing country.

List concerns/comments here! PeregrineAY 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. See Talk:Developing country, same reasons as there. Ikh 09:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Impolitic: the current titles are the prevalent ones in use, being intuitive and conforming to the Wp common naming convention. The proposed titles are not at all used (online) and unnecessarily occlude the topic for a visitor. Similarly, the UN HDI categorises countries according to high, medium, and low human development. Instead, edit the article to better embrace a neutral point of view. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• • points well taken, I shall edit the articles soon, instead of renaming. Peregrine_^AY 10:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cite your sources

Both disputed lists currently have very vague sources. Unless somebody can come up with some concrete references neither list should be included in Wikipedia. Joe D (t) 12:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• World Bank
• OECD
• CIA World Factbook
• UN (note "b")
• IMF

I believe this is quite exhaustive. Combine this information with List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita and UN Human Development Index and you'll have a pretty good idea of which countries are developed. —Cantus…☎ 05:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Imperative to list developed nations?

I wonder is it imperative to list nations that are generally regarded as developed nations? Though I agree with the current list, some people and stats may disagree. It might be a better to stay away from potential source of dispute. -- Taku 03:23, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

Removed Argentina (2003)

I removed Argentina because Britannica says:

Between 1930 and 1980 Argentina fell from being one of the wealthiest countries in the world to ranking with the developing (Third World) nations.

And I don't think Argentina recovered considerably recently. -- Taku 04:17, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

I think that Argentina and Chile should at least deserve a mention in the "other cases" section. In terms of HDI and GDP/capita both countries are about the same as countries in Eastern Europe, and well ahead of countries like Mexico, South Africa, and Chile.--Todd Kloos 17:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think Argentina and Chile are definitely worth mentioning. The South American countries have been moving up in status.PeregrineAY 21:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

OECD How about using the membership of OECD as one criterion of developed nations? The list seems very similar to the list we have now? -- Taku 04:25, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

I used Developed Countries Contact List and and memberships of OECD as source. I think this is fine. If we found a better source, we can switch the list to it. -- Taku 04:47, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

From developing nation: "The United Nations allows each nation to decide for itself whether it will be designated as "undeveloped" or "developing" (though many economists and other observers ignore the UN rule about self-designation)."

Is it the same for developed nations? --Jiang 00:49, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't know. I looked at some books but couldn't find a decisive definitions. I am not a political scientist and have no intention to defend the claim we have now in the article. -- Taku 00:53, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

I think the sources we're using are quite subjective, such as having Argentina listed for being a member of OECD: [1]. Isn't there a better way of doing this? --Jiang 01:09, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Argentina is not a member of OECD. I think OECD is quite objective. Do you know a better way? -- Taku 01:22, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

First on the link i posted. --Jiang

And that is obviously not a list of members of the OECD. —Cantus…☎ 22:50, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Brunei

Why is Brunei, a member of the UNEP DTIE Ozone Action Programme, left out? That list includes the EU as a partner. Do we include all EU countries? --`Jiang

First there seems confusion about how I am using the sources. Sorry about that. I added a couple of words to clarify. I don't think the membership of FATF is a good indication of developed nations. Turkey, for instance, is certainly not a developed nation and Europe Commission and Hong Kong are not nations after all. OECD includes nations like Turkey so I added a couple more sources to exclude some nations. Right, you can say it is subjective, Pod so I certainly welcome better solutions. -- Taku 01:34, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

This method doesn't work, how about the HDI

This method of categorization doesn't work. Singapore and Andorra, for example, are clearly developed countries. They may not be part of certain international organizations because of their relative size, but that shouldn't discount them from being recognized as developed. --TwinsFan48

Why don't you use the HDI (Human Development Index), provide by the United nations? It's by far the best and most accurate source to check what countries are developed or not.

Link to the full report: http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/pdf/hdr03_HDI.pdf

We already debated this and decided not to use that index. Please read previous statements before posting a comment. --TwinsFan48

Thanks for your answer, but could you please tell me where did you talk before about the HDI??? I can´t find nothing about it on this page. Thanks.

It is mentioned indirectly towards the top of the page, on User:TakuyaMurata's talk page, and in the article's edit history. We decided not to use it because it lists certain countries like Turkey, Qatar, etc., in its "highly developed" category, and those countries do not have general currency as "developed" countries, even though they may have a high level of development compared to many others. --TwinsFan48

What About dependencies?

How come dependencies aren't included, or even mentioned, in this article. I've tried to add them a number of times, but they've been deleted. I think the Netherlands Antilles, Puerto Rico, Bermuda, French Polynesia, etc., are industrialized enough to be included. What's the problem?

This is the third time someone has deleted my mention of dependencies. Why are they not included? Can someone explain????? Hihellowhatsup 21:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The country you mention above cannot classified as developed country.If is so,we also must take UAE,Brunei and Qatar as developed country.Why? because these country as the article say were depend overwhelming to oil production.As well as dependencies country,they also depend overwhelming for tourism industry and they did'nt have enough criteria industry to become as developed country.

--> Simple. Dependencies are NOT countries. The mention of a country implicitly includes its dependencies. There aren't any significant colonial empires remaining in deep poverty compared to their oftentimes more populous parent countries. The overwhelming majority of dependencies of developed countries are themselves at least almost as developed as the parent country.

So why don't we list dependencies separately? Well, beyond Bermuda, numerous tiny dependencies exist, from Anguilla to Saint Helena to tiny Norfolk Island. Even more dependencies lack any permanent population whatsoever, including the Coral Sea Islands, the French Antarctic Territory, Diego Garcia, and the Guano Islands.

Many of these dependencies are too small to declare "developed" without their relationship to a developed parent country. Limited population generally constrains potential economic diversification. These resulting single-industry nations, such as those of the West Indies, often lack "developed" status that their GDP seems to allow them.

Ok, but couldn't dependencies be mentioned somewhere in the article. I think it's only fair Hihellowhatsup 21:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead! WP:Be bold. But be aware that most dependencies don't need to be mentioned. Add ones that are unique (For example, Saint Helena is a dependency of the UK, and can be safely assumed that it is also a developed area/part of the developed nation).

World bank -nations group by income and indebted estimates.

http://www.worldbank.org/data/countryclass/classgroups.htm

Central European nations should be included

I think the following countries should be included in the list:

• Turkey
• Estonia
• Lithuania
• Latvia
• Hungary
• Czechia
• Poland
• Slovakia
• Romania
• Slovenia

These should be included for main reasons:

• Level of development - by this, it is understood: industry and infrastructure, as well as similar social makeup to other developed countries (Slovenia is similar to Portugal in development/wealth/infrastructure/government/society but not at all similar to India or Mali).
• Membership of the EU - all the above countries are either full EU members or waiting to be admitted (Romania and Bulgaria will join in 2007). This signifies they are developed.
• Membership of OECD - an even stronger signal - Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland are members of the "rich club" of nations.
• They are not Third World nations. While they can be classified as "economies in transition", I think the article clearly states that "Countries not belonging in this category are sometimes euphemistically called developing nations. Other terms sometimes used to describe the dichotomy are first world/third world". How can Czechia or Hungary be classified as developing, Third World countries. Therefore, if the world is divided into three worlds, then maybe countries like Romania, Bulgaria, etc. can be thought of as being second world, but since the term second world is obsolete after the Cold War, generally the world is divided into two: developed and developing. Surely, the Central European states (Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland, Romania) along with Bulgaria and the Baltic States are developed, are they not, under this definition?

What we are seeing recently in Wikipedia is that, to include something, it must be cited from a source. Fair enough, but the fact is that, if reasons are proved, then it is also good to include those facts. Remember that Wikipedia isn't only simply a collection of facts from other sources, but rather an encyclopedia which gives its own facts if they are correct. Cantus said, "do not change info that was taken for a credited source". I did not change the info of the CIA World Factbook, because I clearly said that these countries can "also" be considered developed nations due to the above reasons.

Out of those countries, the only two that I can see possibly being included are Slovenia and then the Czech Republic. And just because a nation is joining EU, it doesn't mean it's developed. Bulgaria and Romania don't belong in the list for sure. While they are growing and developing, they still have many problems (e.g. poverty, infrastructure etc). Would you consider Croatia a developed nation? It's a prosperous nation. It's GDP per capita is much stronger than that of Bulgaria and Romania and experiences a higher standard of living, yet due to its communist past, and the last 10-15 years of DEVELOPMENT, we can't yet define it as a developed country. But I guess it varies from definition to definition. It's connotative but most of the world regards it in this definition. Slovenia and the Czech Republic can be made exceptions, especially Slovenia. It's GDP per capita is right up there in the group of the richest nations of Europe and surpasses countries like Portugal and Greece (I believe). Buffer v2 21:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

central Europe is DEVELOPED

It's not fare to leave out the V4 countries out of the list, please consider putting them on the developed list. And Turkey is not considered developed, many of the sectors of Turkey are in full fledged poverty. Thanks for reading.

Please provide sources for these claims. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong

With Hong Kong SAR, I corrected it to Hong Kong SAR from Hong Kong because is not a "developed nation" in the sense that while it is developed, it is not an independent nation. Therefore, we can either take it off the list, which would be a tad unfair, or we could rename it Hong Kong, China or the most common name "Hong Kong SAR" (Special Administrative Region). Rronline 06:17, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

South Africa/Egypt

Do we want to add South Africa and/or maybe Egypt, just in the interest in having something from Africa on the list? Pakaran (ark a pan) 15:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, those are both maybe half a tier below "developed" - along with a few other unlisted nations like India and Mexico. Pakaran (ark a pan) 15:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Just in the interest isn't really what we're looking for here ;) You could always add a note, or add them under "worth mentioning" =D PeregrineAY 21:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Mexican insider perspective!

Hi, I'm a Mexican and I'm only giving the inside perspective about my country. Mexico is not a developed country, we feel we still have a long way to go, we went to the OECD mostly to learn from the experts. know we have democracy, but while insecurity and emigration to U.S. keep being a mayor issue no one from here would dare to say the contrary.

Bulgaria doesn't belong, but these dependencies do (I disagree)

Bulgaria does not belong on the list, while these countries/dependencies do Aruba, Bahamas, The, Bahrain, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Qatar, Channel Islands, French Polynesia, Greenland, Guam, Isle of Man, Kuwait, Macao, China, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Puerto Rico, United Arab Emirates , and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Although some of these areas such as, Kuwait, Bahrain, Brunei, Qatar, and UAE are dependent on one source of income they are quickly diversifying their economies to solve this problem. --Newtype88 (unsigned)

How can you people consider Turkey developed? Look up more info on what country is developed. I definitely think that new Europe should be on the developed countries list.

• You've listed a long list of dependencies and countries. Dependencies can be named UNDER a separate section, and only if they're worth noting, please. For example, the Isle of Man can be safely assumed as part of the developed country of the UK ! No need to list it specially. PeregrineAY 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

There hasn't been any discussion of ongoing issues on this talk page for over a week now, so I've removed protection. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I made changes, but I didn't sign

Hi, I hope people agree with the changes I made. First off, I think that the Czech republic should be on this list, its development in comparison its neighbors in eastern Europe puts it closer to the sphere of influence of the developed nations of western Europe. Secondly, I checked, and Bermuda isn't even self governing. I removed it from the list considering its government is run by the united kingdom, which is already on the list.

• next time, please sign your comments with four tildes like this <quote>PeregrineAY 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)</quote>

Okay, but if you consider Czech Republic developed what about the country that has the most modern economy in central Europe, 'Poland'? And what about Hungary, or even Slovakia? I think that the V4 should definitely be on the list. Their GDP is growing rapidly fast soon they will join the ranks of other older EU members. The definition of eastern Europe is getting phased out, it no longer complies. There is only one Europe now.

Stop reverting

Powertranz, please stop reverting this article. My version is based on facts from the sources cited, not speculations. Read your own post above, it is full of speculations. My version is based on facts and not my view of the world. Thank you. —Cantus…☎ 00:34, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

All EU members are developed (NOT)

Hi. You say "it is obvious all EU members are developed". That is a POV statement. Looking at the data from the UN, World Bank, IMF, OECD, CIA, I can't find anywhere where they consider Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, or Poland developed countries. Yet some of these sources do consider Turkey a developed nation. Please look at the FACTS before reverting to your preferred version. Also, please sign your posts using <nowicki>68.12.219.7 01:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)</nowicki> in the future. Thank you. —Cantus…☎ 06:42, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Show me one reputable source that says all 25 EU members are developed countries. Until then, please look at the evidence and stop reverting. Thank you. —Cantus…☎ 10:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop the silly edit war

Just write the thing so that you both agree on it. There's plenty of ways to decide whether a country is developed or not, so you can't produce a definitive list. If some sources say one thing, and the others the other, just write which sources say what. Zocky 12:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Page protected

No talk page edits by contributors since May 18, I see. I have protected this for 24 hours to get contributors to stop reverting and instead work out their differences on Talk. Revert wars are just as sterile even if the editors are experienced enough to stay just within the 3RR. Please contact me or any admin if things have been constructively addressed before the 24 hours are up.--Bishonen | talk 12:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I have already tried everything. I posted a message on Powertranz's talk page, but he deleted it. I posted messages here, but Powertranz never replied. I posted a message at the Administrators' noticeboard requesting help from the admins, but not a single one cared to reply. I have tried everything. If you see Powertranz's contributions, you would see he is only here to revert this article. I suspect he is a vandal and should be blocked. —Cantus…☎ 05:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Right, thank you for your message, and I'm very sorry you got no response from posting on WP:AN. If Powertranz is a vandal, he's not a very active one—as you say, he only edits this page—so I won't block him. If he should continue to edit war without replying to messages once the page is unprotected, though, I certainly will block him (and the same with anybody else who does that). I'll try to keep an eye on it, but it would be good if you'd also notify me if that happens. And please try to message Powertranz here, not just on his page, so that others can follow the progress of the discussion (I'm hoping there will be progress!).Bishonen | talk 11:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm unprotecting now.--Bishonen | talk 13:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry I haven't replied in a while. Now concerning the argument that I've been having with Cantus, 'him calling a vandal' is unjustly and impolite. All I want is for this page to be left the way it is right now, it's correct and adequate. My only argument is that I want all of the EU members to be included in the Developed list. That's all. --Powertranz | talk 14:49 Nov 24 2005 (UTC)

• • All you want .... if the Wikipedian community doesn't want what you want, you are overruled. What you want, and Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, can be two very different things. PeregrineAY 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You must provide references to international organisation(s), relevant academic studies or similar if you want the claim to remain in the article. Joe D (t) 20:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, Cantus has provided several references so I suggest that if you can provide references for your list you add something like:

"[source(s)] also consider the other European Union countries to be developed."

Joe D (t) 10:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The UN link leads to the map that clearly shows all of EU members as developed. And I'm not sure what good is the OECD link, since its members include most of Eastern Europe and Mexico, but not some Eastern European countries which are just as developed or more developed than, say, Slovakia, e.g. Slovenia and Estonia. Zocky 11:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The UN link shows all of Europe as developed, and this is the same they state on their definition (see article). This is a general description and should not be taken as in "all countries in Europe are developed". You should take into account all the sources I've referenced and cross the lists. —Cantus…☎ 11:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean — Albania, which is definitely not a developed country, is included in the "developed region" of Europe. Still, the OECD link seems irrelevant; it just lists the member states, and it's not clear that all of them are or are meant to be developed. Zocky 12:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Why won't you just leave the version that Bishonen had it's direct and accurate. --Powertranz | talk 14:25 Nov 25 2005 (UTC)

You have been asked to cite your sources, none of your edits or comments have any weight until you tell us where, with a link, book or peer-reviewed paper citation, you got them from. Please do not edit the article again until you can do this. Wikipedia content is untimately not decided by arguments on talk pages, or dictated by any one person, it is decided by what matches the verifiable references. If you can provide them, your edits will be welcome and this issue will be over. Joe D (t) 19:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for a resolution

I suggest we only list those countries that all of the main sources agree on, and beneath the list we discuss those that the sources do not agree on. This has the added benefit of giving us the option of discussing why the sources do not agree on those countries. Joe D (t) 20:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Czech republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia developed?

Powertranz, could you please, on this Talk: page, directly quote and link to the sources which consider Czech republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia to be "developed"? I'm sure that will help clear up any problems. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I added Czechia, Hungary and Poland to the bottom for being newly developed nations (middle class if you will). Which infact many sources do cite they are, I don't even have to search it out it's listed all over Wikipedia. --Powertranz | talk 11:42 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you make a claim, you do "have to search it out". Wikipedia doesn't count as a source by the way. Could you please provide some of the reliable "many sources" which claim that these countries are "newly developed"? That will help clear up any problems. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

"Many sources" - for the last time, give us the link or citation. If it's that simple you will be able to cite them and this issue will instantly be over, and the editor(s) who disagreed will have to accept your edits, the revert war will end. But if you continue to edit the page without providing any references this will have to be taken the next stage of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Joe D (t) 16:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if he continues to refuse to provide sources, the next step is to remove his unsourced claims; since he is "just here to do what is right", according to his user page, I'm sure he'll recognize the rightness of that action. If he, against all reason, persists in trying to insert them, then the next step is some sort of dispute resolution. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(The following links were added by Powertranz)

• http://www.mzv.cz/washington/general/general.htm
  • This page says: "The Czech Republic traditionally ranks high among the developed industrial nations." That's nice, however this is just a PR statement from an embassy page and not a neutral source. —Cantus…☎ 06:09, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• http://www.unicef.org/media/media_14661.html
  • This page also oddily includes Mexico is the list and Mexico is obviously a developing country, so this doesn't count. —Cantus…☎ 06:09, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Mexico's HDI is over 0.8 and its economy is booming. Mexico isn't so obviously a developing counry anymore. PeregrineAY 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• http://www.ce-review.org/00/30/kopanic30.html
  • This article is about Slovakia joining the OECD. We have already discussed that not all OECD members are developed. —Cantus…☎ 06:09, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

UN states

That the V4 are middle class so I classified them as so, link is here *United Nations Statistics Division (developed regions). So there. --Powertranz | talk 14:57, May 29 2005 (UTC)

That page says: There is no established convention for the designation of “developed” and “developing” countries or areas in the United Nations system. In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania, and Europe are considered “developed” regions. Perhaps we should stop using UN for proving which country is developed and which isn't.

OTOH, this is not the List of developed countries. Maybe we should stop trying to provide a definitive list and relying on these or those rankings. If a country is considered to be developed by some people, we should say so. Otherwise, we might want to redirect this to First World. Zocky 07:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I will agree with you on that one, personally I've been to both Turkey and the V4 countries recently and I noticed that the living standards are a lot higher int he V4 countries (especially Poland & Czechia). I don't think we should be adding Turkey as developed in my opinion, it's overall economic situation is improving but not yet on par with developed countries. I think we should add the V4 countries as developed and obviously Slovenia. --Powertranz | talk 13:25, May 30 2005 (UTC)

Cantus please disclose how is Turkey considered developed in your eye's

I've been clearly reading about Turkish situation and it's no better then Poland's, Hungary's, and Czech's. It purchasing parity is lower the Irans, half of Turkey lives in "poverty" do you see that in central Europe? Don't even add Turkey in the same context as developed statistics prove it; IRAN: purchasing power parity - $7,700 (2004 est.) - TURKEY: purchasing power parity - $7,400 (2004 est.). --Powertranz | talk 1:10, May 30 2005 (UTC)

I'm only quoting a reference. In this case, the CIA World Factbook, which considers Turkey a developed country. See the list of links under References and take a look. —Cantus…☎ 21:10, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cantus if you wouldn't mind give me the exact link demonstrating that Turkey is considered developed. Thanks. --Powertranz | talk 14:46, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

In the article, under References, follow the link "The World Factbook" and read under "developed countries (DCs)". —Cantus…☎ 05:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Slovenia a developed country?

Should Slovenia be added to the list of developed nations?

Pro: a) The World Bank and the United Nations classify it as a developed nation. See: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/developed_new.htm (under developed and listed as high-income) http://www.worldbank.org/data/countryclass/classgroups.htm#High_income (under developed along with Malta and Cyprus)

b) It's HDI index is just below Portugal's (a difference 0.002 points, 1 being the maximum possible) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_HDI_index#Top_thirty_countries http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/pdf/hdr04_HDI.pdf

Note that the page says that the report (published for 2004) has most of the data from 2001 or 2002, and because Slovenia had a bigger economic growth than Portugal since then, it's most likely that economic indicators have pushed the country ahead of Portugal.

c) It's GDP per capita (2005 estimate) PPP is larger than Greece's and Portugal's (21,695 compared to 21,529 and 19,949 respectively). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

d) It is a member of the EU and NATO, a donor to the World Bank (the first transition country to do that). http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ECA/eca.nsf/0/8F40611796782AAE85256E5A0054CC6D?OpenDocument

e) It is the most developed post-communist country in Europe (see HDI index and GDP per capita figures).

Con: a) It is a post-communist state.

b) It is not a member of the OECD (Although this is a weird fact, considering it's more developed than some of the OECD's members and is hoping of entering soon). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OECD

My personal judgement is that the pro's outweigh the con's, I would like to add it to the list, but first I want to hear your comments. edolen1 18:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason not to add Slovenia. The fact that it's a post-communist state is not a Con reason, because it's now been roughly 15 years since Communism fell. The OECD membership issue is also unimportant, because Mexico is an OECD member which is developing, while there are also other developed non-OECD members. Anyway, Slovenia is a high-income economy exceeding Portugal and Greece. Any attempt not to include it as developed is either unfair or inflexible. As to adding the V4 countries, there are more reservations about them. As a Romanian, I think they should be added, Romania included. Simply because infrastructurally they're quite developed and have industrialised economies But, I understand the reservations of many people in adding them. Therefore, I agree with the status quo, where the "other EU member states" are kept under Other cases. When they become high-income economies, like Czechia soon will, then they can be added to the main list. But Slovenia must be decoupled and placed on the main list if we want any hope of seeming fair and NPOV. Ronline 09:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I checked HDI and Slovenia skipped just ahead of Portugal. Judging from GDP it is also ahead. So I think this is getting a little biased, not having it in the same group. Well, I am from Slovenia but the fact is that other new EU members are just a couple of places around, like Malta, Cyprus or Czech Republic. Reconsider. --Tone 21:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Slovenia is fine, based on the excellent evidence you have provided PeregrineAY 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR block

This edit warring is not helping the article any. I'm going to block Powertranz for 24 hours for 3RR violations. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits to Other cases

Just in case anyone has a problem with it, here are the changes I made to the other cases Central and Eastern Europe point:

changed remain significantly less affluent than western Europe to remain less affluent than the EU-15 member states. Firstly, saying they're significantly less affluent is not fair, because countries like Czechia, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus are actually very close to the "developed countries" of the EU-15 - Spain, Greece, Portugal, etc. So there's no significant difference in affluence. Others like Hungary, Slovakia, Estonia are somewhat less affluent. The only ones it can be said are significantly less affluent are Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, who are at around 50% of the EU average. So I think it's better we let the text be more general - now it just says they're less affluent, but not by what margin. Secondly, this western Europe thing. Western Europe I tend to see as a fairly controversial definition. It's better that we use the more precise term in this case, and say EU-15, since we're specifically referring to the "old" EU members, which the article states are all developed, in comparison to the 2004 new ones. Ronline 10:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cantus - I changed eastern Europe to former-Communist because I think it's a fairer terminology. Eastern Europe has a narrow definition, more used today, to refer only to Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. Former-Communist is fairer also because it highlights the reason for these countries economic differences with the EU-15. Now, to Powertranz. Poland is not the most advanced economy in Central Europe. Might I say that it's the least advanced. Mind you, it's a wonderful country and Warsaw is a great city, prosperous and increasingly vibrant, but in terms of GDP per capita, Poland is ranked second-last in the EU, after Latvia. So it is very fair to include it as an example of some of the less affluent new member states (in fact, Poland is set to become the poorest EU state soon as Latvia's Baltic Tiger era booms forward). Ronline 07:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please tell me where did you hear this? Baltic states richer then Poland? Poland still remains a popular destination for investments. It's GDP is low because it's a bigger country thus more money needs to be added from the EU fund. This is from Warsaw Business Journal an estimate for the future.

A favorable EU budget could make Poland Europe's sixth economic power 19th May 2005

A favorable EU budget could make Poland Europe's sixth economic power

If European Union leaders agree to a budget which is favorable for Poland for 2007-2013, then living standards in the country will rise so that it will be only 40% lower than the one in Germany in eight years time.

Over this period, the average person's purchasing parity would increase from 46% to 58% of the EU average. At the same time, the figure for Germany would drop from 106% of the EU average to 103%. This would mean that Poland would follow the economic success of Spain. The draft budget supported by the European Commission would see net transfer of 3.79% of Poland's GNP each year. According to data from the Vienna Institute of Economic Studies, by 2013 Poland's GNP would increase by one-third to EUR 299 billion. This would mean that Poland could become the sixth most important economic power in the EU. Now it all depends on the structure of the new EU budget, which could result in structural funds of between EUR 57-62 billion flowing into Poland during 2007-2013. --Powertranz | talk 12:50, June 3 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand the fact that even today Poland is one of Europe's biggest economic powers. That fact in itself does not necessarily make it developed. Firstly, let me tell you that personally I believe Poland is developed, so don't misunderstand me there. All I'm saying is that in the "Other cases", some new EU members, including Poland, have to be mentioned because they are quite less affluent than the EU average. If you look over at the European Union article, you see these GDP-per-capita figures (PPP, 2005):

• Czech Republic 19,475
• Hungary 16,627
• Estonia 16,461
• Slovakia 16,110
• Lithuania 14,198
• Poland 13,275
• Latvia 12,886

Based on the EU average of around $26-27,000, we can see that Czech Republic and Slovenia are up there with the EU-15 members, they are only slightly less affluent. Hungary, Estonia and Slovakia are in the "middle group", at around 60-65% of the EU average. Now, Lithuania, Poland and Latvia are the ones which are quite significantly less affluent, at slightly less than 50% of the EU average. So, these are the three we have to mention. These are the three which are generally mentioned as the poorer states of Europe. That's not to say they're not dynamic and are not currently booming - all of them are, including Poland. However, just because Poland has a large economy does not mean it has an advanced economy. China has a large economy and is an economic power, but is still a lower-middle income country. Poland is already the EU's sixth largest economy, but also its second-poorest. I know that's due to a large population and agricultural sector. My country, Romania, faces a similar problem because of its large population and agricultural sector.

However, we have to be objective and look at the problem this way - Lithuania, Poland and Latvia are the three poorest EU member states, with a fairly large gap between them and the next poorest state, Slovakia ($16,100). Therefore, we have to mention them. If you want to remove Poland, then you better remove Lithuania. What does that leave? Latvia? Come on, we can't just give one example. So I've put Poland back. Ronline 11:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consensus of developed countries?

The article states, "Organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Central Intelligence Agency, generally agree that the group of developed countries include..."

However, the CIA world factbook defines "Developed countries (DCs)" as "the top group in the hierarchy of developed countries (DCs), former USSR/Eastern Europe (former USSR/EE), and less developed countries (LDCs); includes the market-oriented economies of the mainly democratic nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Bermuda, Israel, South Africa, and the European ministates; also known as the First World, high-income countries, the North, industrial countries; generally have a per capita GDP in excess of $10,000 although four OECD countries and South Africa have figures well under $10,000 and two of the excluded OPEC countries have figures of more than $10,000; the 34 DCs are: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, NZ, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, US; note - similar to the new International Monetary Fund (IMF) term "advanced economies" that adds Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan but drops Malta, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey".

This suggests that there is no consensus. We should perhaps give seperate lists for the World Bank, IMF, CIA, etc. --Jiang 03:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we ask the very basic question first? Do we need to give a list of developed countries? If there is no or nearly universal agreement what country is considered to be developed, there is no need to give the list. Wikipedia doesn't require us to construct the list, based on whatever we have. It may be more practical to give an example instead; like the US and Japan are considered to be developed countries. -- Taku 09:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The trouble with giving examples instead that it will just end in even worse strife. Singaporeans will come around asking why Singapore isn't given as an example, Brits will do the same etc etc. In the end we will either end up with a list or terrible edit wars or both Nil Einne 16:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly think a list would be helpful since the list itself (or the multiple lists) is not lengthy and can easily fit on the page. the disagreement is over a few items on the list, sufficently explained above by the factbook and not the entire list. --Jiang 03:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, IMHO, we should stick with the current system. Mention those that are generally undisputed and for those that are disputed mention them and mention why they are disputed Nil Einne 16:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Besides, the term developed country is still politically incorrect. Do developed countries have no more developing to do? PeregrineAY 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because a country is developed doesn't mean it isn't developing :-P Nil Einne 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template?

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;

(2) Rank of country’s HDI;

(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago's dependency on tourism

I need to look for numbers to back this up but i'm oretty sure Trinidad and Tobago is more dependent on the oil industry than it is on the tourism industry.

here we go http://cso.gov.tt/files/cms/GDP%20@1985%20&%202000%20Prices%20by%20Industry%20TTSNA-%201981%20to%202004.pdf

Slovenia

Hi. I would like to propose adding Slovenia to the list of non-OECD developed countries, for the following reasons:

• It is listed by the World Bank as a high-income country (in fact, it's GDP per capita is higher than that of Portugal and Greece, and nearing that of Spain).
• It ranks one place higher than Portugal on the Human Development Index

So, in both of these indicators, Slovenia is ahead of a developed country - Portugal - and at about the same level as other developed countries such as Greece. Is there any valid reason for not adding it to the main list? The Czech Republic has also overtaken Portugal in GDP per capita, but as of yet it still lags a little bit behind in HDI. But this is another potential country to add to the list. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 13:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I know this reason. It is classified transitional from planned economy to market economy. Transitional countries are all former developed socialist countries, regardless their wealth.--Planemo 17:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan

Should Taiwan be considered a seperate developed entity than China? In my opinion it should since it is largelly independent. Zachorious 06:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't bring this up since it's just going to end in a big fight :-P I don't really see a need to change our current format. Given the controversial nature of Taiwan, we should mention it but also mention why it's inclusion as a developed country is not clear cut. Nil Einne 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem is that the reason mentioned isn't that strong. Anyone can claim another country as their land but it doesn't make it so. For example Sudan can claim that the United States as their land or vice versa but it doesn't make it so. Taiwan still operates independently so I am going to research the % of the Taiwanese people that want to remain a seperate country. If most of the population is for independence while already doing things independently, then China really has no right over the "nation". So I will research and find some more information before I decide whether to movee Taiwan to the list. Zachorious 02:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Taiwan is not a country! Taiwan is not a UN member.

Taiwan is a part of China, history already verified it. If not so, Hainan province would be an independent country. People in Taiwan speak Chinese, write and read Chinese. Are they not Chinese? I don't think so. Chinese is Chinese!!!!! this is a fact!!!! there is only one China in the world! If they want to be treated as an independent country, referendum should be needed in this case and let 1.3 billion people in China, including Taiwan itself, decide. 70.52.73.108 19:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure they can, but recognisation of independence by other countries is a deciding factor. In this case, most countries do not recognise Taiwan as an independent country, because of the economic importance of China. I should imagine those countries that recognise Taiwan have no strong/significant links to China, if they exist at all.

Equiratorial Guinea

Equiratorial Guinea has one of the highest GDPs in the world. It is clearly not a developed country but it isn't mentioned. Similar Barbados has not only a fairly high GDP as mentioned but a high HDI. Indeed a number of the Carribean nations are similar. Again I'm not suggesting they are developed, simply that this is not mentioned. I dont have time to do it myself Nil Einne 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

European Union

among the developed countries, but these mostly former-Communist countries are rather newly industrialised nations and some of them (such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) or those that will join in the future (Bulgaria and Romania) remain significantly less affluent than EU-15 countries. Future candidates will also be less affluent than the EU-15 counties. They inlcude Croatia, Turkey, and Macedonia. All European Union members, however, have a GDP per capita greater than the global average.

This statement as it stood, while technically correct was confusing. It mentions Bulgarian and Romania as being significantly less affluent and then later goes on to say all EU members have a GDP per capita higher then the gloval average. However Bulgaria and Romania do not. I have modified it accordingly. However I have greater concerns about the way this is phrased. It compares the contries to the EU-15 but fails completely to mention that a number of these countries are in the range with other countries that many regard to be developing. Romania and Bulgaria being the primary examples are below countries many regard as to be developing in GDP per capitata (such as Malaysia and Chile) and indeed Bulgarian in particular has a HDI below 0.8. Perhaps by the time they become EU members things will be different but when need to make it clear that it's not just in comparison with the EU-15 members that they appear to be developing. Nil Einne 17:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

This has been protected for weeks and week, and there doesn't seem to be any ongoing discussion, so I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

please keep an eye on this page, it may need to be protected again. thanks. Appleby 16:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Turkey???

I am sorry but I think Turkey belongs to this category. Turkey has an increasing economy, and may be in the EU. But I think this article is written by an "EU person", who hates Turkey. I want to change that mistake... Thanks.

Turkey is considered a developing country and not developed by all credible sources (IMF, World Bank, CIA, OECD). It is easy to see why. Per capita income is aprox $8.000, whereas for developed countries listed is above $20.000. Human development index is 0.75-medium, whereas for developed countries listed is above 0.9-high. We dont hate Turkey, we sometimes visit it as well. And when we do, frankly, we can see for ourselves why it is not listed on developed nations.Mywayyy 00:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't seen eastern Turkey, I certainly have and I can tell you it is nothing like western Turkey. Turkey has a loooong way to go before it is classified a developed country. That said, it is one of the more developed of the developed of the developing nations. And it is developing.

Before writing your own opinion, it is surely better to take a look at the research of CIA via "https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html" under "developed countries".Rutilicus

Malaysia

Would Malaysia be considered a developed country, or developing country? It is a highly developed developing country if it is not a developed country... Yes, that confused me as well :P

Somebody tried to add Malaysia items into the list, meanwhile, to remove South Korea from the list; however, I don't think that Malaysia is considered a developed country because of its HDI(0.796) and GDP per capita($12,106). --Nicolehayashi 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate

This actical is BS and totally inaccurate. for example slovenia is clearly more developed in all regard to portugal yet is not of the list. why? ah, because it was communist and "newly industrialized." Here is a clue ALL of eastern europe has been industrialized for years! Have you not heard of the russian industrial revolution, it came much before places like Southern Europe! I would like some one to tell me why slovenia is not on the list? else it should be added.

Yes, I also believe Slovenia should be added. It is a high-income country (classified by the World Bank) and a net donor, and has a HDI higher than 0.9 (which the article gives as a standard for development). I have added it as a separate entry to the "Other cases" list. It is not added to the main list yet because other organisations don't consider it developed as such, even though I think that that it should be added to this list. Just one thing, however - the IMF does not yet consider Slovenia an advanced economy (neither does it consider Malta and Cyprus as such). When it joins the euro, however, it will be placed in the "Euro zone" area, which is classified as an advanced economy by the IMF, so I think that the case for adding it to the main developed list will be very strong by then. Ronline ✉ 04:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus is classfied as an "advanced economy" by the IMF.....Sevenstar22:35 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao

Taiwan, Hong Kong are developed economies. however, the People's Republic of China, a developing country, claims the sovereignty and land of the first, and exercises sovereignty over the latter two.(vgiom330)

removing them is misleading and POV. They are clearly treated as separate economies by the PRC, other countries, and intl organizations. They should be included on the list with footnotes explaining the political situation (already done)--Jiang 07:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan is simply a province of the People's Republic of China. Taiwan should not be put on the list of developed countries in this topic. 70.52.73.108 05:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan is not a province of the People's Republic of China. The PRC has no political control over Taiwan, and thus Taiwan is not a province of it. Casey14 22:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

political control sometimes is not necessary in this case in order to tell everybody Taiwan is the province of PRC. All UN permenant members recongised Taiwan is a part of PRC. There is only one China in the world and the legititmate one is the PRC ONLY. Forces will be used in case Taiwan declared independece OR foreigner (esp. US) keep going on to support illegal riots. Undeclared bombardment by PRC nuclear weapon on the US land cannot be ruled out if the US keep going on to block. 70.52.66.225 07:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

should Macao be considered a developed entity? according to the level of HDI and the figure of GDP per capita, Macao is basically qualified in these areas. How about other areas, e.g. the system and quality of health care service, education, human resources, etc? 70.52.75.167 06:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Casey 14 If taiwan really is a nation state then why are other countries cutting off diplomatic relations with Taiwan? they should oppose China, shouldn't they? so Casey 14 whenever you say that Taiwan is independent, think about your how your country cut off it's formal relation with ROC and how Taiwan's constitution still states it's relations with the mainland.

Cyprus, Faroe Islands, Bermuda

Cyprus, Faroe Islands, Bermuda are generally not considered developed countries because these economies depend overwhelmingly on the tourist industry.(vgiom330)

Cyprus is classfied as an "advanced economy" by the IMF. Faroe Islands and Bermuda are classified as DCs by the CIA......BbJeffery]

Nevertheless, Cyprus's HDI is still below 0.9. Should Cyprus be included in the list? I noticed that someone added Cyprus into the list again. --Nicolehayashi 16:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello all: I'm not too familiar with this page but judging from the consensus of the sources and editors above, South Korea should be listed as a developed country. An anonymous IP has been deleting South Korea from the list and I think this has been going on for a while to the point of this page being semi-protected a couple of months ago. Any advice would be appreciated to resolve the vandalism. Thanks. Tortfeasor 06:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism On "List of Developed Countries"

WTF???? Someone needs to correct the recent vandalism ( I think it was by 218.186.8.10). What the heck is North Korea, Nepal, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, ect. there? These are not developed countries. And what happened to the other developed countries? And how come no one did anything for nearly 5 days? I'll try to correct the problem. Zachorious 08:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I have restored the list to normal, but you never know. If the list is still missing any that was there then add it. Also this page needs to be watched more because it seems to be vandalized a lot. Zachorious 09:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Argentina, Uruguay, and possibly Chile

It seems as if these countries are developed, and should be mentioned in the second section along with Hong Kong, Slovenia, etc. Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay both have high standards of living, high literacy rates, and are industrialized. They should at least receive some mention.Casey14 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

According to this index they are quite developed. But indices are tricky and these countries' development is not uniform. I'm Argentine and I can tell you that the center and south of this country are comparable in development to some countries listed here, but most of the north is not; not to mention the disparity inside metropolitan areas. Even disregarding that, these three countries are right in the verge if you only consider their middle classes.--cloviz 02:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am just curious about the prospects of the Czech Republic Slovenia and Slovakia to be developed nations?

--J intela 11:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Slovenia should be listed as a developed country, in that there is no longer any real difference in any indicator between it and other developed countries. For one, the country is classified as high-income by the World Bank, having a GDP per capita higher than that of Portugal. It also had a HDI higher than 0.9, which this article sets as the "development benchmark" for developed countries. Furthermore, it is, since 2007, a member of the Eurozone, and the IMF classifies all Eurozone economies as "advanced economies". Consequently, there is no rational reason as to why Slovenia should be omitted from the list. The cases of the Czech Republic and Slovakia are a bit more complex. The Czech Republic considers itself to be developed (see its official website) which, according to the UN, makes it meet the criteria (since the UN defines "developed countries" as being a category of voluntary association). The country also meets another developed country criteria: it is a net donor to the World Bank. On the other hand, it fails to meet the other criteria, by a small margin:

• High-income status: In 2005, the Czech Republic had a (nominal) GNI per capita of $10,710, making it an upper-middle-income economy according to the World Bank. The benchmark for high-income status was $10,726 or more in the same year. This means that the Czech Republic missed out by just $16 (!) and is expected to become a high-income country in 2006.
• HDI: In 2004, the latest year for which there is data, the Czech Republic's HDI was 0.885, below the 0.9 level commonly associated with developed countries. It is expected that the country will reach this level in a few years (perhaps by 2006, data which will be used for the 2008 report).
• "Advanced economy" status: the IMF still considers the Czech Republic to be an "emerging economy" rather than an "advanced economy". The rationale behind this is not explained by the IMF.

Personally, I would consider the Czech Republic developed in light of the above statistics, since in 2006 it probably did make the standard. However, it probably needs one or two years in order to more fully meet all of the criteria. The third country you brought up was Slovakia, which I believe is rather different to the above two. First of all, Slovakia's performance in the EU-8 group is rather average: if we were to list Slovakia as developed, then we would also have to list Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, and probably Poland, Bulgaria and Romania as well. Slovakia fails to meet all of the criteria for developed-country status, by a rather sizeable margin:

• It is classified as upper-middle-income, with a 2005 GNI per capita of $7,950, or 74% of the high-income benchmark. In my opinion, the country will require at least 3-4 years of growth before meeting the standard - i.e. in the context of rapid growth and currency appreciation, we're looking at about 2009, when it will probably also join the Eurozone.
• It had a HDI of 0.856 - perhaps it could meet the 0.9 level in 3-5 years.
• It is not classified as "advanced" by the IMF.

So, if we're looking into the prospects of those three countries to be developed nations, I would say: Slovenia is already one, the Czech Republic barely makes it, but we can consider it developed by 2006/07, while Slovakia will become developed by 2009 at the earliest. By 2010, I believe that all of the EU-8 except Poland (and perhaps Latvia) will be considered developed countries (high-income and with a HDI of 0.9+). Ronline ✉ 13:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the Czech Republic and Slovenia are high income countries - there is no definite answer as whether or not a country is developed. We can only present the user with as many reputable concepts as possible and leave him or her to draw his or her own conclusions. Regards, Signature^brendel 07:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

just go to cia world fact book mexico is number 14th in GPD

How come the US and Israel are the only develuped countries with above replacement fertility?

--J intela 08:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OR problem with "Other parts of the world" section

"Other parts of the world" mentions several countries as potential Developed countreis without giving references. Please note OR here is not that you gave reference for countries' GDP. It is OR because it claims a country is "likely to join the ranks of developed nations" without giving a clear source on that. Wikipedians are not in charge of identifing those countries. Outside researchers should say which country is "likely to join the ranks of developed nations". You should either bring reliable source clearly mention a country as potential developed country or it is OR.Farmanesh 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see this talk. I think it is a little too extreme to tag the whole section as OR. For example, what if I bring sources indicating Mexico will be a developed nation by 2020-2025? That won't be enough to remove the OR tag. We need to find another solution, because also we can't add the OR tag to each individual country, it would look terrible. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree we can't add OR to each country but as this section is now it is OR for all countries. As you know it is similar to regional power article. Any country need an outside source mentioning (with many diverse languages) that that country is a potential developed or "likely to join the ranks of developed nations". There can be many wordings giving that message and I think it would not be hard to find them but as of now they really are OR.

As of the edit war going on, have you tried to talk with him. This talk page is so big that I may have missed your talk, but if in next step you want to bring mediator or admins to help, first you need to show you have tried to talk with each other. Agian maybe I missed your talk in this huge page.Farmanesh 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Brazil section and lack of sources

There is this user that added Brazil to the list of "Other parts of the world". That's ok I guess, but he refuses to add sources. I had to edit his contributions, as they seem to be just boosterism practices with a lot of unencyclopedic statements. I formatted his references (one of them didn't even mention that the "south of Brazil is considered first world and the north third world) and use it properly to indicate that this expert guy thinks Brazil will reach EU standards by 2050. That was far most important and he didn't even see that. Well, that's not the point.

He just keeps reverting and adding his unsourced claims and call my reverts "vandalism". I tried to talk to him, I even was friendly and asked him to add sources, but he just refuses to listen. Can somebody else try to talk to him? He just won't listen to me. The problem is easy to fix: just adding sources. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

non-sover. states

For all non-sover. states like Hong Kong, Macau, Bermuda were written in italic forms. 74.14.122.64 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

quality of life survey

theres no source listed, and it looks flawed.