Talk:Developed country/Archive 1

message: *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)
thread_title: Early comments

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

text: 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)
thread_title: IMPORTANT, possible article name change

message: 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)
thread_title: Cite your sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  What About dependencies? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Central European nations should be included 

message: 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)
thread_title:  central Europe is DEVELOPED 

message: 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)
thread_title: Hong Kong

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: South Africa/Egypt

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: 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)
thread_title: I made changes, but I didn't sign

message: 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)
thread_title: All EU members are developed (NOT)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please stop the silly edit war 

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggestion for a resolution

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Czech republic]], [[Hungary]], [[Poland]],  [[Slovenia]]  developed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UN states 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Slovenia a developed country? 

message: 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)
thread_title: 3RR block

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  '''[[Template_talk:Infobox_Country#VOTE.21.21_-_HDI_in_country_infobox.2Ftemplate.3F|VOTE!!]]''' - HDI in [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Countries|Infobox#Countries|country infobox]]/template? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Slovenia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Taiwan

message: 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)
thread_title: Equiratorial Guinea

message: :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)
thread_title:  European Union 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Turkey??? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Malaysia

message: 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)
thread_title: Inaccurate

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao

message: 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)
thread_title: Cyprus, Faroe Islands, Bermuda

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism On "List of Developed Countries"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Argentina, Uruguay, and possibly Chile

message: --J intela 11:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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, Signaturebrendel 07:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am just curious about the prospects of the Czech Republic Slovenia and Slovakia to be developed nations? 

message: --J intela 08:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come the US and Israel are the only develuped countries with above replacement fertility? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brazil section and lack of sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  non-sover. states