Talk:Developed country

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Supaman89 (talk | contribs) at 16:44, 18 October 2007 (→‎Article needs protection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

== CIA's list of "developed countries" is the authoritative "THE list of developed countries." Now, some people might not like the list, but the list is correct, and is THE list. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should not prevent people from accessing this information, but rather provide this information. Whether to agree with the list or not depends on the reader. But the list has to be there since it is THE list. Excluding that list is like writing a page about US states, but not including the names of the states since some people "believe" (yes, "believe") that one or more of the states should not be in the list. If Wikipedia wants to keep its credibility, the list should be put back. ~~# Heyyaaa (I don't know how to sign my name)


Archive 1


The section "Comprehensive list of developed countries" is original research

The official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research states that "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." If this list was merely created by some nobody wikipedian from the lists of World Bank, IMF and CIA (none of which is properly cited in the section btw) and is not supported by any credible authority as a whole, then it is an original research material that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It should be replaced by the original 3 lists with proper citation. --Saintjust 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, see my comment in the last section. Signaturebrendel 22:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Macau

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

  • The article is based on international reports.
    • there is no such requirement that certain reports should be preferred, e.g. CIA or UN. All evidence should be respected.Guia Hill 20:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • There is a debate between the sources! On one hand, "China Modernization Report" describes Macau as a developed country; On the other hand, the international UN organisation of UNCTAD, as well as the CIA, put Macau in the "developing country list". In case of debates between respected sources, what should be preferred - are official lists made by organisations, as UNCTAD, dealing with all countries. "China Modernization Report" gives no official list of all developed countries in the world. If Taiwan declares it is a sovereign state - should this declaration be respected? If Angola declares it is a developed country - should this declaration be respected? In footnotes - all unilateral declarations can be indicated, but the list itself can only be based on reports dealing with all countries. Eliko 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To give no offical list of all countries doesn't mean the evidence is not valid. The report is conducted by China Modernization Strategic Studies Group under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. There is no requirement that CIA or UN has the final say. Guia Hill 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC):
        • there is no requirement for anything, but when there is a debate between sources - then the international source should be preferred. Eliko 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • what a laughable statement. Who authorised you if there is no requirement for anything, then the internataional source should be preferred. Actually CIA is not an international organization. It is an American organization indeed.Guia Hill 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
            • UNCTAD is an organization of the UN. Eliko 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK! good, the People's Republic of China is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, each of which has veto power on any UN resolution. Then the report from China should be respected. Guia Hill 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
                • "China Modernization Report" is not an official report of the UN. There is a debate between "China Modernization Report" and UNCTAD, so "China Modernization Report" can't have the final say. Therefore, Macau should be included in neither the "developing country list" nor in the "developed country list". Eliko 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article shouldn't be based on "original research".
    • there is no original research in this case.Guia Hill 20:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • An "original research" is (e.g.) any decision to ignore the list of the international UN organisation of UNCTAD, which classifies Macau as "developing". If there is a debate between the international UN organisation of UNCTAD - and "China Modernization Report", then that debate can be indicated in a footnote. Eliko 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • same as above
        • same as above. Eliko 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Macau is not recognized by any international organisation as a developed/advanced territory. On the contrary, the UNCTAD organisaion (of the UN), as well as the CIA, classify Macao as a "developing" territory.
    • some organizations stated that Macau is not recognised by CIA or UN doesn't mean this is the final conclusion.Guia Hill 20:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No final conclusion, therefore, Wikipedia puts Macau neither in "developing country list" nor in "developed country list". No final conclusion, therefore the debate between the international UN organisation of UNCTAD - and "China Modernization Report", is indicated in a footnote. Eliko 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK! therefore revert!Guia Hill 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I think you are the person who has to revert, since you agree the debate between the sources shouldn't be decided unilaterally. Eliko 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you can created yourself article as Developed country defined by American organization CIA or UN. Then, I will not revert it for sure! Guia Hill 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Since there is a debate between sources - then Wikipedia puts Macau neither in "developing country list" nor in "developed country list". No final conclusion, therefore the debate between the international UN organisation of UNCTAD - and "China Modernization Report", is indicated in a footnote. Eliko 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If there is debates bewteen sources, according to wikipedia's policy, you should list both, but not only list in footnotes. Guia Hill 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
                • The debate is mentioned in a footnote, but the list of "developed" can't be built according to one source only (of China Modernization Report) - thus contradicting the other international source of the UN. Therefore, Macau should be included in neither the "developing country list" nor in the "developed country list". Eliko 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new citation about Macau (in "People's Daily") is now included in the footnote about Macau.
Eliko 19:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I didn't erase the information you supplied, since I indicated your source in a footnote. However, you did erase my footnote, which includes the other sources, and you erased all the other information about Cyprus and Slovenia etc.
  • Note that my version includes no information denied by the China Modernization Report (since I didn't put Macau in "developing country list"). However, your version does include information denied by the international source of the UN.
  • When there is a debate between sources - then Wikipedia shouldn't prefer China Modernization Report than the UN report. What should be done in case of debate between a private source and an international source - is to indicate the contradicting sources, but Wikipedia list can't include information denied by one of the sources taking part in the debate, namely by the international source (of the UN).
Eliko 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected that you may have some psychartic problem indeed (no offensive). Who told you China Modernization Report was denied by the source of the UN? can you give me any evidence? I am not going to talk to you, since it wastes too much time on this. Guia Hill 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I too suspected that you may have some psychartic problem indeed (no offensive).
I didn't write that China Modernization Report was denied by the source of the UN. I wrote that the infornation (about Macau) supplied by China Modernization Report was denied by the source of the UN. See page xii table B. Macao is classified by UNCTAD in the list of "developing countries".
I, too, am not going to talk to you, since it wastes too much time on this.
Eliko 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting important information

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

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

data from CIA can't be used

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

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

other source should be used as well

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

  • Some czech sources classify Czech Republic as "developed". Some hungarian sources classify Hungary as "developed". However, the CIA list (of developing countries) - which classifies Czech Republic and Hungary as "developing countries" - refers to all countries in the world, not only to Czech Republic or Hungary; That's why the CIA is more authoritative than the czech sources and the hungarian sources.
  • China Modernization Report - which classifies Macau as a "developed territory" - refers to chinese territories only, while the CIA list (of developing countries) - which classifies Macau as a "developing territory" - refers to all countries in the world, not only to Macau; That's why the CIA list is more authoritative than the chinese report.
  • CIA list of advanced countries - includes no information denied by any international organisation; On the other hand, the list based on China Modernization Report's classification of Macau as "developed" - is denied by some international organisations, such as UNCTAD organisation of the UN, which puts Macau in the list of "developing countries" (as one can see in page xii table B). This is another reason why the CIA list (of advanced countries) is more authoritative than the chinese report.
  • The original Wikipedia list based on CIA list of advanced countries - includes no information denied by China Modernization Report (since the original Wikipedia list does not put Macau in any "developing country list"); On the other hand, the list based on China Modernization Report's classification of Macau as "developed" - does include information denied by some organisations, such as UNCTAD organisaion of the UN, as well as the CIA, which classify Macau as a "developing territory". This is another reason why the CIA list (of advanced countries) is more authoritative than the chinese report.
  • There is a contradiction between China Modernization Report (which classifies Macau as a "developed territory") and the UNCTAD organisaion of the UN (as well as the CIA), classifying Macau as a "developing" territory. Therefore, the dispute between the sources should be resolved in favor of neither source, i.e. Macau should be included - neither in the "developing country list" nor in the "developed country list", and the dispute between the sources should be indicated (e.g. in a footnote).
Eliko 08:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
revert vandalism Eliko 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Macau should be on the list as reference already provided. Guia Hill 18:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Macau can't be in the list. Manstorius 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eliko or Manstorius, you should know that there is no ownership in wiki and everyone can come here and edit as long as they are rational with reference provided. There is no so-called article like Eliko's version of developed country. I suggest that you should create a blog and write down the list of developed country on your own. What do you think? 74.12.182.133 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee

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

Could you point me to the page where the arbitration is taking place? Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the user means the mediation cabal (even though they don't exist), see WP:MEDCAB. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am here because of your WP:MEDCAB case (which may or may not exist as there is no cabal). ;-) Is this issue still a problem? I am opening this case. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25 Developed country. Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Greeves! Thank you for coming to help us.
The problem is whether to accept the current version (which I and other editors support), or to change it (as other editors think). For more details see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25 Developed country.
Eliko 13:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive list is OR

Wikipedia editors cannot put toghther a comphrensive list. All we can do is list the countries certain organizations list a "high income" or advanced. It is simply not up to us to decide whether a country is developed or not - especially since there isn't a concerete definition. Is Macao developed? We can't answer that question with a yes or no. What we can do is identify it as country that has been classified as high income by the World Bank. Whether or not that makes Macao a developed country is up to the reader to decide. The list is OR becuase it is an attempt to decide which country is and isn't developed -something we simply can't decide on WP. I have started replacing the list with seperate lists that reflect the World Bank and IMF classification - I'll add one for the CIA later. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  High income
  Upper-middle income
  Lower-middle income
  Low income
I disagree that the previous list was OR, since it didn't create a new definition of "developed country", but simply listed those countries which were classified as developed by all of the CIA, the IMF and the World Bank. I wouldn't have called that a "comprehensive" list, since it fact was possibly the narrowest list of developed countries. However, I believe it was very convenient, and since all entries were sourced as developed, did not constitute original research. I think the new structure, of having three parallel lists, is too confusing, particularly due to the overlap. I would suggest going back to the previous list, but also making a note about the differing definitions and mentioning countries which are only included in one or two of the lists. To put it in terms of the Macao dispute: we would list Macao as developed if the IMF and WB consider it such. Since the IMF doesn't consider it as an advanced economy, Macao should be listed in "other cases". Ronline ✉ 11:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are also mistakes in the Image:High Income country.png map. The Czech Republic is not coloured in, and Estonia and Latvia is represented as high-income (which is the case only for Estonia). I would correct the map, but I don't know how to revert back the borders of the Baltic states and then colour in Estonia only. I will attempt to make a new map showing all four divisions (high income, upper-middle, lower-middle and low) on the same map, as I think this would be more widely-applicable. Ronline ✉ 11:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I have made a new map, Image:World Bank income groups.png. The colour scheme isn't great, but it includes all the different categories, including the updated list for high-income economies. Ronline ✉ 12:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose returning to the old list vehemently. There is not coherent definition of a developed country, hence there cannot be just one list. All there is are different institutions, using different criteria, creating different lists. Is Turkey a developed country? Well it isn't an advanced economy according to the IMF but it is a developed country on the CIA list. Moving a country like Turkey to an "Other cases" list is complete OR - it suggest that there is some twilight cateogry - there isn't. One of sources does list Turkey, the other doesn't. We need to do the same. Mention it on one list but no the other. We need to stick to our sources! If our sources consist of two different lists composed by different agencies that employ different criteria, than our article will consist of two different lists as well. As it states in the OR policy: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C.
(ie. CIA + IMF - what isn't mentioned in both = developed country = OR)
Your new map looks great, I used it to replace the previous map I stiched to together late at night. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess you're right with the original research part. I was just thinking that we should avoid the article with all these different and overlapping definitions, and then creating lots of similar articles (for example, First World overlaps with developed country which overlaps with high income countries) which serve to confuse the reader. Although Wikipedia needs to be NPOV and must not engage in original research, I think it must at the same time also provide some synthesis or summary of information, otherwise it risks becoming little more than a search engine. We need to provide the links between and explanation of the sources in order to form a cohesive article.
I think if we're going to have the three separate lists, we should explain why they are different - i.e. the criteria used by each organisation. Though I must say that the criteria are fairly arbitrary (and this should be made clear too). The CIA, for example, does not explain why it chose certain countries for its list - the inclusion of Turkey and South Africa, and the exclusion of South Korea and Slovenia, would suggest that the CIA's definition of developed countries is simply the Cold War definition of First World. The IMF's "advanced economy" status is also not adequately explained by the organisation itself (I don't think). I agree with the fact that you've moved the high income countries to a separate article since the two definitions are not exactly the same - a country can be high-income but not developed. I think that the IMF list should be moved first, before the CIA list. I really think that the CIA list is not the best source in this regard, not only because it fails to explain its criteria, but because its definition conflicts itself. It says that the definition "includes the market-oriented economies of the mainly democratic nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)". Why would South Korea not be included in this definition? Why is Turkey included but Mexico is excluded? Both are OECD members at comparable development levels (in fact, Mexico has a higher GDP per capita and higher HDI than Turkey), neither were part of the Second World. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 14:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that we agree on the OR issue. Sometimes having seperate lists is the only non-OR option - especially when dealing w/ a vaguely defined concept such as this. I agree, we should explain how the IMF and CIA created their lists and what criteria they used. Unfortuntaly I haven't found that any detailed info yet... I hope I will soon - until I do, just include whatever you've found 'til now.
As for moving the lists we need to excercise caution. It is not up to us to judge the lists - they both come from creidble sources. Personally I think the IMF has the "best" list - but that just my opinion. I moved the CIA list first becuase C comes before I in the alphabet. That said, I suppose we could move the IMF list up w/o risking any sort of POV statement. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the previous list was much much better. Multiple lists cause a great deal of confusion, not to say that the CIA list is flawed. How is Turkey considered a developed country? With a per capita income of just $9,000, HDI no 92 in the world, high infant mortality, poverty etc etc there are many many other countries, including AFRICAN ones that are way better than Turkey. It just doesnt make sense. I think we should produce one single list that takes into account what the IMF and World Bank say, regarding advanced economies and high-income economies and of course HDI that should be over 0,9. Otherwise if we produce a list that has, for instance, Turkey as a developed country, why not add Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Tunisia, etc etc..Thanx!Aero1980 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the topic is confusing and the two lists are rather easy to navigate. We need to reflect our sources or risk OR. Turkey is a developed country according to the CIA -that's all that matters, whether we agree or disagree. "why not add Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Tunisia, etc etc.." - becuase they or not on any given list. If Tunisia was on a list from the CIA or IMF it would listed too. It is not up too us to classify countries and it is not up to us to decide whether or not a list is flawed and its entries should be omitted. If the list comes from the CIA or IMF - reputable sources - it need to be reflected accurately in the article. Furthermore, "developed country" and "advaned economy" are two different concepts using different criteria set by different instutitions - you cannot merge the two. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I understand what you say but I think one of the things a good Encyclopedia must do is to filter its sources and present the most credible and reasonable data. Thus I strongly believe that the CIA list is flawed (the reasons for that might be many) by adding as developed countries, two countries that clearly are not: Turkey and South Africa. By presenting them as developed we reduce Wikipedia's credibility since all other organizations that in fact produce such data (used by CIA itself) dont consider the above coountries as developed. Now, there is a strong correlation between a developed country and an advanced economy. Usually a strong economy, with a high GDP/capita will have a high HDI and thus considered developed. The point is that an advanced economy that also has a high HDI, 0,9 or more will defenately be a developed country. Those countries are all Western European countries, USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and more, but defenately not Turkey nor South Africa. Those two countries are too poor with too low HDI's that even if CIA considers them developed, we, as Wikipedians should look the other facts and present a reasonable list.Aero1980 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do need to filter sources - but the CIA passes all criteria. I myself disagree with the CIA list - South Africa, where 33% of the population live in "informal housing" and 80% haven't completed a secondary education isn't a developed country IMHO. But me disagreeing with the CIA list is irrelevant in this case. The CIA is a credible source as is the list it has developed. A good encyclopedia must all display the data given by its sources in the most accurate manner possible w/o having the editor's opinions influence the article's content. We cannot censor our sources. Fact is, there are two different lists, by two different institutions - we need to present both of them w/ equal merit. Doing so will no hurt our credibility - it may hurt that of the CIA but not ours - we did not devise the list but are simply presenting the reasearch of a reputable organization. We need to leave it up to the reader to judge the lists - it is the only thing we can do as Wikipedia editors. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA advanced country list

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

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

Eliko 19:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added the list above as it differs from the other two. Great job! Signaturebrendel 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. The current new version above is more asthetic.
2. Not Czech republic, but Cyprus.
3. Instead of "not the CIA advanced economy list" - it should have been written: "not to the CIA advanced economy list".
4. Instead of "As of 2001" I think "since 2001" is preferable.
Eliko 19:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the mistakes and conducted an "asthetic overhaul" w/ the new list above. Thanks, Signaturebrendel 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've fixed only 2 mistakes out of 4, so let me indicate all of the other mistakes.
1. Cyprus, not Cyrus.
2. Instead of "not the CIA advanced economy list" - it had better been written: "not to the CIA advanced economy list".
Eliko 19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I fixed 3 out of 4 and made one new mistake! ;-) I didn't fix mistake No. 3 because I didn't see it while scanning the section. I was a bit more careful this time around and think I caught all of them. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Not "the Cyprus" - but simply: Cyprus...
2. Cyprus was added to IMF list (6 years) before Slovenia was added (and not vice versa).
Eliko 19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... gatcha. My, o my I am quite prone to mistakes this morning (more than usual!)... well at least "the Cyprus" makes me laught... I am not quite sure, however, what you want me to fix on point #2. Signaturebrendel 20:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On point #2 I simply meant Cyprus should have been mentioned before Slovenia (not vice versa).
What made me laugh is having read: "this morning...20:09, 14 July 2007"...
Eliko 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... lol. I'm in California here it was before noon -I think ;-). Signaturebrendel 02:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about my comment regarding Cyprus and Slovenia? I was referring to your sentence: "Since 2001, however, Slovenia and Cyprus were added to the IMF but not to the CIA advanced economy list". Cyprus should have been mentioned before Slovenia (not vice versa), because Cyprus was added to IMF list - 6 years before Slovenia was added.
Eliko 09:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it just now. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal case/Protection

Quick Links for MedCab Case: Cases/2007-06-25 Developed country
Developed country  • Andrew pmk • Eliko • 74.12.182.133 • Coloane

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

South Africa Developed?

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

Kingj123 01:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who decides that these CIA sources are reputable, you? It IS up to the Wikiusers, to chose reliable information and sources. And CIA is not reliable, when it states Southafrica and Turkey are developed/advanced countries. By the way, CIA is not even a reliable institution to analize economic status of countries. We could then use the KGB's or other inteligences sources here to add economic status of countries, its just not serious, neither profund. --194.203.215.254 11:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstook my second quote - both quotes say basically the same thing. The CIA is a reliable source, even if we disagree with it. See WP veriviablity guidelines for why the CIA qualifies. As a result, we have no other choice than to feature the CIA list in its entirity. Signaturebrendel 23:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, you will need to contact the CIA. I agree, South Korea should be on there - but it's not my call to make in my capacities as a WP editor. Signaturebrendel 07:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QOL

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

Certainly we can add that list. But it is not up to us to decide which institutions definition is to be adopted. As Wikipedia editors we can only present the information available to us through reputable institutions. The CIA, IMF, UN and World Bank are reputable sources. Lists and definitions used by all these sources need to be featured in the same manner as they are set forth by these institutions. Again, it is not our call to decide which list is better. Please beware of OR. This article is not the result of editors conducting research. The research is conducted by our sources, not us. We simply present their conclusions in the most unaltered form possible. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except I'm not referring to CIA/IMG/UN/WB statistics, I'm referring to statistics published by a magazine, The Economist...it's no more credible than any other magazine in its field, and significantly less credible than the UN or CIA. Hence why I'm suggesting we use them instead. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 07:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree here with the people that think that the CIA list is incorrect. Everybody must understand that countries are classified as developed mainly from their economic indicators and from HDI. Now I dont know how much cradible CIA is, but I do know it is an intelligence agency and not an economic organization or United Nations organization. Thus, its not CIA's job to clasify countries, neither it is a credible source FOR THIS specific topic. IMF, World Bank, the Economist and the UN for the HDI are far better and specialized organizations for such info.So its up to Wikipedia to filter and to select the best sources for data. CIA is not the best source for economic and human development data, when it states that Turkey and South Africa are developed. Clearly those two countries are far from developed. Both countries have mass poverty, low GDP per capita and low HDI. I think its totally incorrect to present such a list. The Economist and IMF list represent by far the truth.88.218.89.31 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with you. CIA Indicators are misleading and very unreliable. It's up to the users to decide to include encyclopedical quality sources into this site, and not to "promote" less serious information like CIA data is. --194.203.215.254 12:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA

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

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


I agree with what Kingj123 says. CIA list is clearly wrong, when it states that South Africa and Turkey are developed countries. Those two countries have low GDP per capita, low quality of lifes and low HDI. I really cant understand with what criteria did those guys at the CIA produced such a list. The point is that the CIA is not even a credible organization when it comes to rank countries according to their development. CIA is an intelligent organization, not an economic organization. There are other organizations that specialize in that area, such as IMF, World Bank, Economist ect. I think the CIA list should be removed immediately and keep the IMF list which is the correct list, that reflects reality. It is the job of Wikipedians to present CREDIBLE and CORRECT data and not just all data.88.218.32.55 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes you guys more qualified sources than the CIA? Let's stay away from original research or POV. 151.44.152.248 01:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly, 88.218.32.55 is from Greece, whose only personal concern was to remove Turkey from the list. 151.44.152.248 01:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Kingj123 was upset because the CIA wasn't very generous towards his country, South Korea. Unfortunately, every economic indicator in Wikipedia includes both the CIA and the IMF (and if possible, the World Bank) lists, because these organizations have different criteria in measuring which countries qualify to get into their lists and which ones don't, or how they rank. We can't pick one list or erase the other according to our personal tastes, or according to "which one glorifies my country the most", or "which one doesn't glorify my enemy". 151.44.152.248 01:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please don't close a discussion unilaterally. No consensus to delete the list has been found. I have reverted the edits and hope I will not have to protect the page from an IP edit war. As for the abovem No. 1 fails to discredit the CIA (it is widely used as a source of economic stats), No. 2 is your opinion, No. 3 is misplacing the burden of proof, No. 4 is correct which is why we need to work w/ the WP:OR policy and keep the CIA list. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia we describe information published in reliable sources as per our policy of verifiability, in which it is clearly stated that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.
If a source, such as the CIA made a mistake, we simply say that "the CIA says Turkey and South Africa as developed countries", attributing that viewpoint to them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo, Jossie! That's exactely it. Signaturebrendel 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


CIA list compromise

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

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

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

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

Yes, the CIA is reliable. You may agree or disagree, but the CIA as a "data keeper" is a reliable sources and an authority on the subject of this article. As Alex pointed out above "All kind of information should be included, as long as it is well sourced." Remember the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth but verifiablity. Please do not delete the list again without consensus having been found first and mind Wikipedia policy, which clearly states that all data from reliable sources - be it true or false in your view - must be included. Thanks, Signaturebrendel 09:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prove me that CIA is reliable source for the specific topic. You say it is reliable, it doesnt mean it is! I believe, based on that list, that the CIA is NOT reliable. You say it is. Why should YOU be correct?

I believe I am correct for the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

Article needs protection

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

I also think there seems to be necessity for partial protection for a while.Farmanesh 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you requested it - I have granted protection for 48 hours. If you want more protection please request it as the noticeboard. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa, Taiwan and Portugal

Ok, I think we all know that those 3 countries are definitely not developed, even if they were sourced, I could probably find references stating that Russia is a developed country as well but that doesn't mean it's correct, but it that's the case, I guess I'm gonna have to add a more countries to the list because there are some others that I can definitely back up. Supaman89 16:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Developed_country&oldid=165437084"