Talk:Newly industrialized country

message: Please, before anybody makes a comment on whether the Philippines should be included in the list of NIC's or not bear this in mind. Study how to compose your articles properly. I'm a Filipino and from what I've read here (especially those who ridicule the Philippines), you people don't even know how to use English properly. Us Filipinos know what we are talking about and know how to properly compose it.
The Philippines is more than just overseas workers. We have a solid banking system which has so far withstood the current economic collapse of wealthier countries. Our manufacturing and services sectors are also rapidly expanding. The country's economic principles are solid and like it or not, the Philippines will be rightfully take its place in the world economic stage. Something it should have been able to achieve decades ago.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mitzkel"
:Mitzkel, being a NICs is more about growth than linguistics. The Philippines grew half as fast as the developing world as a whole in the 1980s, 60% as fast in the 1990s and still only 83% as fast in the 2000s. When the Philippines grows significantly faster than other developing economies, it may be time to revisit this issue. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Philippines

message: Goldman Sachs Paper No.134 Relevant Emerging Markets  is an updated study about BRICs, so this source from December 2005 has a more reliable and recent economic perspectives for BRIC and other Newly Industrialized countries than the original BRIC study of 2003 Goldman Sachs Paper No.99 Dreaming with BRICs: The path to 2050 .
Kardrak 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRIMC source 

message: Is Pakistan in the category of newly industrialized countries?? --Mm11 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Numerous non-Indian sources describe India as an NIC (including academic ones).Please remain constructive on this page. Wikipedia is a serious effort at building an encyclopedia, not a forum for posting Pakistani propaganda/rants. There are places for that.117.194.204.8 (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan?? 

message: Many Eastern European nations should be included as Newly industrialized countries. Poland for example is has many features of an advanced economy but lacking in other areas making it an emerging market. Zachorious 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because Poland and other EE states are already industrialised.  Kransky 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EU membership doesn't automatically transform a country into "industrialized country" - if that was the case, Bulgaria would also be "industrialized" (which it definitely is not) and South Korea (NIC) is far more industrialized than any East European country (Hyundai, Daewoo, KIA, Samsung, Daikin, etc...) Flavius Belisarius 03:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you, that EU membership does not make a country automatically industrialized, but Poland definitely earns this spot, if you compare it with the Philippines... There are even more countries I would consider much more industrialized than the ones here mentioned (Turkey, Philippines), like for example Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Estonia... but it has no sense to discuss it, this NIC theme is quite politically biased. --194.203.215.254 12:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Europe 

message: Ok. I think I've read over everything necessary to answer this correctly. 
The table has been referenced sufficiently. The OR and other tags should not be used as references have been used.  The page numbers are not required immediately; I'm not sure if they are even required at all. In any case, if they do need to be there, they can be added at a later date. There is no point in deleting perfectly reliable sources.
Farmanesh, trying to orchestrate your point by using the view of an "admin" (who was not an admin), amounts to a kind a bullying i.e "I've got my admin on you and if you don't do what they said then your violating wiki policy...". Also to accuse Alex of violating wiki policy was not productive when instructing that they keep a cool head. Alex, you should try to measure your tone just a little more carefully and stay neutral.
It is hard to keep a cool head sometimes, especially when you feel you are right, but let this third opinion settle your differences. If either of you want to contact me, you can catch me at my talk page. Hope this helped.
Seraphim Whipp 18:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot for commenting in result of Alex's request on your talk page . I wish you continued reading and you see an admin did actively give his/her opinion. I respect your (and Alex's) opinion very much and just want to have a better sourced page.Farmanesh 18:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your opinion. I was cool at the begining (this debate didn't start here, but in other articles Farmanesh added OR tags as well). I have been trying to source this article and to improve it (check history) and his attitude was not good, because he didn't assume good faith and challenged the content, withouth even taking the time to read the books. I'm glag this is over and I hope Farmanesh will stop, specially now that 2 different persons helped. AlexCov   ( Let's talk! ) 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No my friend, I would not stop :) as it is wikipedia's policy! Either any claim should have exact source or it should be deleted. As you don't accept my word, see policies and one admin's idea below.Farmanesh 19:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: The source added to include Argentina is a dictionary of economical terms. It doesn't seem to be a reliable source. However, after checking the source (7th edition, the newest, 2006, p.629), it doesn't include Argentina or any other country. It just gives a simple definition of what a NIC is (a dictrionary definition), and according to it is:
::Developing country whose economy is supported in a greater or lesser degree, on exports from internally generated industrial production, rather than on agricultural products or commodities.
That's all. AlexCov   ( Let's talk! ) 14:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex, based on the references I gave you, I strongly recommend that you include Argentina, Chile and Israel, unless you wish to redefine NICs as to "countries that industrialized just recently [over the last four decades]". --the Dúnadan 19:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion of Argentina and Chile is also supported by the "Newly Industrialized Countries" reference. Kafziel Talk 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Baron's dictrionary 

message: Why is Turkey positioned in Europe in the table? Only a very small portion of Turkish territory lies in Europe.--Arado 12:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Turkey is not the member of any Asian political or economic organization, but is politically and economically a part of Europe and the European institutions (similar case with Cyprus). More than 80% of Turkey's trade is with the EU, with which Turkey has a Customs Union since 1995. Turkey is also a member of the Council of Europe since 1949 (even before Germany) and an associate member of the EEC (now the EU) since 1963 and of the Western European Union since 1992. Not to mention that Turkey was a founding member of the OECD, as part of its European branch. 151.42.183.146 23:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All your argument is based in organizations that somehow they hold Europe in their names. I certain you could argue that Turkey national soccer team plays belongs to Union of European Football Associations or that they participate in Eurovision song contest. Following your arguments, when Morocco becomes part of the EU, the country will not belong anymore to Africa. I hope you do not propose that because Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization they have coastline in the Atlantic Ocean.
Which still don't make it European! For example: If southern country for no matter what reason, trade mostly with northern country it does not make it northern! If it don't fit it existing tables, then tables must be updated, to be more accurate. Not to be ridiculously bended or stretched. On this logic we can apply that Russia is also European country, because EU is very dependent on Russian energy resources.
Turkey is geopolitically European. Period. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 06:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Could you develop your argumentation further? In particular the geographical argument.
Turkey is geopolitically and historically a part of Europe.Almost the half of Europe was under rules of Ottomans for 500 years long. You can visit the page about " OTTOMAN EMPIRE ".--Cengiz ergun1987 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Ottomans covered in their maximum extension around a fifth of the total area of Europe. Those 500 years they are arguable, but following the same line of reason they were for 700 year in Asia, from their very beginning to their end. However, the topic is about the current Turkey, not the former Ottoman Empire.
although Turkey is a transcontinental country,Turkey generally classify as a european country and it is sociopolitically in Europe, also economic issues (OECD,Council of Europe,Eurosphere,European Trade union,candidate status for EU full membership) shows that Turkey is how much European.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.164.14.142 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey 

message: I am not sure if you have much knowledge of Egypt other than the Pyramids, deserts and camels. However, Egypt fits very much in the criteria of a newly industralised country since its economy is fastly growing for the past four years as well as FDIs have increased almost by 100% between 2006 and 2007 to 11.1 bn. USD. Egypt has always been Africa's second most industrialised economy and the Arab world's most industrialised economy. According to Goldsman Sachs "Next Eleven" report, Egypt is officially expected to be a developed country by the year 2020. Accordingly, I kindly request you to update your map as well as your article on the newly industrialised countries list to include Egypt, in order to reflect the reality. I think, it would be unrealistic to ignore a regional economic power like Egypt when you are talking about newly industrialised countries. Egypt is referenced to be an NIC in p.164 & 170 of the "Globalization and the Transformation of Foreign Economic Policy" book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.185.17.186 (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt is a newly industralised country 

message: Iran became fairly industrialized in the recent years (more so than many countries in the list) but I guess U.S. foreign policy dictates us to turn a blind eye on this fact. Another reason might be the fact that Iran is not a member of the World Trade Organization (it's sort of a pirate state in terms of business) and many foreign companies which invested in Iran went bust because they couldn't get their money (one example being the TAV consortium of Turkey in the Imam Khomeini International Airport project.) In such incidents, there is no international body to which foreign companies in Iran (or similarly, Libya) can appeal to. 151.42.183.146 23:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 

message: Some people already argue about this. I think they got a good point here, there's no reason to put it in the list. Sure the book did mention the country's name, but it also mentioned Indonesia, which a sane person will agree it shouldn't be on the list. This country has no economic significance or any outstanding multinational companies like in India and China, and it is undoubtedly have lower achievenment compared to its neighbour like Malaysia and Thailand. Instead of concentrating on production, the country economy depends quite a lot on remmitance, mostly millions of low-paid workers send their money back to their home country, which gives huge contribution to their GDP. There's much better candidates can fill the list like a couple of countries in south America.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomo1 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not the first user that comment based in that, in their opinion, a certain country should/should not be included. We are not here to "decide" what country is a NIC what country is not. We simply research the subject and if we find enough and strong evidence that a country is a NIC, we add it to the table. We just must not decide what is and what is not a NIC. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 21:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure it will be, but we will have to wait at least 50 years to have useful data to support that POV.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do you want to include Philippines anyway ? 

message: Under the Brief Economic Analysis section, there is a sentence about fair trade that looked like it had suffered some copy-and-paste mistake. I tried to fix it up so it at least makes sense, but it could still use some work by someone more knowledgeable in the area. (Just a note, I did not add the above section, although I did edit so that it was it's own section, as seems to have been the intent of the author) 142.58.225.52 (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Trade movement 

message: Hi,
I just now checked with the elaborate list of developed countries (DCs) in the CIA World Factbook. The link is https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html. Yes, Mexico can be considered a NIC, but not a developed country. Svr014 (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico is NOT a developed country 

message: Hi,
I just made a decent modification to the issues section. It now looks clear enough. Svr014 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification to the issues section 

message: Hi,
I checked with the CIA World Factbook and found that Mexico is classified as a developing country and NOT a developed country. Turkey is a developed country. South Africa is classified as both a developing country and a developed country. Svr014 (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction to the Current NIC countries section 

message: I had to correct some of the information that are deemed incorrect according to the article. Mexico is a developing country and NOT a developed country. Also, only 27.5% of Indians live under the national poverty line and not 77% percent. I have reported the user to the administrator of english wikipedia. He will be blocked from using WP again. Sources: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svr014 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information... 

message: I don't see any standard or accepted definition for a "newly industrialized country" (which, from the articles in the media seem to include the likes of Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore). The countries mentioned in the media references are by any definition *developed* countries and I see this article degenerating into a pointless debate about what countries are developed. The countries in this list should be those that the accepted definition refers to, viz. South Korea, Singapore, etc. Cribananda (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs total revamp 

message: I with the correct sources made alterations to the page. It is now in a good condition. Please protect it. Svr014 (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections to the page 

message: Hi All, 
I and other editors have added new information to the page. They are very informative. Svr014 (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New information added to the page... 

message: The article states that "NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached first world status..." Yet it states that Turkey is a NIC. But Turkey has long been categorized as a first world country. The second world refers to the mainly former communist states, and the third world for the underdeveloped countries in mainly Asia and Africa. Turkey, actually, does not fit into any of the categories. For further information look at First World. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with classification and Turkey 

message: locked the page for 24 hours to shut down the edit war, discuss it and agree or I'll block the next one to blindly revert. Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Is not Israel a newly-industrialized country?--MathFacts (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the page says the term is best applied to developing countries with higher-than-average industrial output. Israel, in most indicators (whether social or economical), is clearly more aligned with fully developed economies than with any other group. Guinsberg (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: Could the term "2nd world country" be used to describe NICs (or at least some of them)? I know the Cold War definition of 2nd world country, but I was wondering if it could be applied in a modern sense (like how some former communist nations are now considered 1st world or 3rd world).--76.83.1.76 (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it couldn't. 2nd World is no longer used in scholarship to refer to any country. And as a matter of fact, I've never seen the NIC term being used to refer to most countries on the article's list either. 189.119.179.225 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd world country 

message: It is really funny, that that country is mentioned only in the table but not once in the text. -- 112.205.18.138 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippines 

message: 1. From the following source,
David Waugh (3rd edition 2000). "Manufacturing industries (chapter 19), World development (chapter 22)". Geography, An Integrated Approach. Nelson Thornes Ltd.. pp. 563, 576–579, 633, and 640. .
: I am able to establish Brazil, Mexico and Argentina as NIC's. 
2. From the following source,
Paweł Bożyk (2006). "Newly Industrialized Countries". Globalization and the Transformation of Foreign Economic Policy. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 164. .
: I am able to establish as Frist generation NIC's “ south Korea, Taiwan, Hon kong,  Singapore, Brazil and Mexico” as Second generation NIC's  “Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Cyprus and Jordan.” as Third generation NIC's “india, Egypt, Argentina and chile.”
3. From the following source, 
http://www.photius.com/countries/japan/government/japan_government_newly_industrialized~447.html
: I am able to establish South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, as NIC's 
4. From the following Source,
Mauro F. Guillén (2003). "Multinationals, Ideology, and Organized Labor". The Limits of Convergence. Princeton University Press. pp. 126 (Table 5.1). 
: I am able to establish Argentina, South Korea, and Spain as NIC's
Each of the following countries are mention in the following sources. 
Brazil - 2 cites (1, 2) 
Mexico - 2 cites (1, 2)
Argentina - 3 cites (1, 2, 4)
South Korea - 3 cites (2, 3,4)
So far I am happy to list Argentina and South Korea as NIC's given we can find two more sources for each of them. The others have 2 or less sources, unless new sources are put forward they should be promptly De-listed from the NIC table.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case by case evaluation need for each NIC listing 

message: I have included the following tags to the article, Please DO NOT remove them until each one is solved here in the discussion. 
This tag was included, as there non sufficient references in the article to establish a single NIC, until further sources are found and the above dispute is settled DO NOT remove this tag. 
This tag was included, as references 13 (^ " France invites Egypt to join G14") and 15 (^ http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/georgesept62001.html) are broken. Please DO NOT remove this tag, until the broken references are fixed OR the cited text along with the references are removed. 
This tag was included as certain references have been misinterpreted. Please DO NOT remove this tag, until the above dispute is settled.
:I have removed some of the tags, because one single "broken" link doesn't merit a whole article to be tagged. There's an online tag to address single problems with broken links. Secondly, there are more than enough sources talking about what NICs are. This recent addition of multiple tags seems to be an attempt to demerit the article just because a single country couldn't make to the list of current NICS, due to the fact that no author consider it a NIC, and nobody could find a reliable source indicating this. In other words, a bad-faithed attempt to demerit the article because it doesn't fit a person POV. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: I think Indonesia is included NICS, as in this site Main report, East Asia and Pacific Economy
"This study discusses the relationship between public policy and rapid economic growth. East Asia has a record of high and sustained economic growth during the last twenty-five years. Most of this growth occurred in eight economies - Japan, Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and the newly industrializing Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. The High Performing Asian Economies (HPAEs) use a variety of policies to achieve three functions of growth - accumulation, allocation, and productivity growth. They are diverse in natural resources, culture, and political institutions; and they differ in the degree of government intervention in the economy and the manner in which policies are shaped and implemented. The study attempts to explain East Asia's success and to develop a model of rapid growth with equity. It finds that the diversity of experience, the variety of institutions, and the variations in policies among the HPAEs does not allow a model to be developed. However, some lessons for other developing countries can be learned from the East Asian experience. First, it is essential to get the fundamentals right. High levels of domestic saving, broad based human capital, good macroeconomic management, and limited price distortions provide the basis for growth. Second, careful policy interventions to accelerate growth produces very rapid growth."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RidwanFadilArif (talk • contribs) 08:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesia entered the NICs? 

message: The article did a good job of remaining neutral when presenting information, and none of the claims appear biased. 
However, when checking through the citations, I found a citation that only linked back to another Wikipedia article. Citation #13 "G8 Structure and Activities" contained a link to the Wikipedia article on the "Group of Eight." Another citation (#14 "France Invites Egypt to join G14") does not link to an article or source; it only links back to Yahoo's home page. 
I found the article to give a concise description of what is a NIC, some historical background, current NICs, present issues, etc. The article stayed on topic, but there is room for expansion in the Historical Context section and Other NICs section.
Arijafari (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of Information/Citations 

message: The lead section is too long and contains a laundry list of the features of the term NIC. Currently, most of the items on that list lack a citation, which they desperately need because several of them are doubtful at best. The list is also a problem in that statements made later in the page contradict it. For instance, the claim that Russia is an NIC contradicts the claim that NICs are countries that recently switched from agricultural sectors to industrial economies. A fuzziness in the definition of what exactly an NIC is is present throughout the page.
The section "Current NICs" contains several superfluous statements, and gives the impression that the authors did not work together on writing the section. This impression is augmented by the way information in different parts contradicts each other. For example, there are multiple statements that introduce the G8+5 in this section.
The section "Brief economic analysis" is superfluous, containing only information that belongs either in a general description of the features of an NIC, or in the section that describes criticisms of NICs. The entire section lacks in line citations.
The section "Issues" is loaded with value statements and is in need of a thorough rebranding. Calling the section "Issues" immediately makes it seem as though the editors synthesized problems of NICs into a critique, rather than presenting criticisms in an unbiased manner. The statement about economic and political freedom in China is loaded with ethical assumptions about human rights. A different tone is needed in this section to express the problems that NICs must deal with.
Rdedwards95 (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncoordinated with Statements of Value 

message: Would better defining what an NIC is compared to other developing countries better represent what NIC's are sicne I feel that the explanation in the first part of the article is a bit vague? As well I believe that there should be a section on how NIC's economic growth impacts the global market to better show what NIC are contributing to both developed and developing nations.
Maalikib (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining and better representing NIC 

message: User Special:Contributions/24.36.172.58 recently added Turkey to table of NICs.  Inclusion seems to be contradicted by the text that precedes the table.  Since I am new to this article, I'm not going to edit, but suspect that this is a perennial issue.  Flagging here for a better informed editor and for discussion if necessary.Federalist51 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Turkey to NIC table? 

message: The map () certainly lends some color. However, , I can't find anything about this in any 2014 article by the IMF - but the IMF published 754 items in 2014 so I imagine it's probably out there. Any help you could provide would be appreciated. Also . II | (t - c) 20:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for 2014 map