Talk:Millennium Development Goals

message: Sad to see that anonymous contributors introduce "U.S. Leadership" for the MDGs (at ODA=0.17% of GDP compared to 0.46% from Europe), and remove the 0.7% goal, quoting John Bolton, without any comments from the Wiki community. Jj2006 09:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It's quite sad how little there is on important political wiki articles.  I've been using Wiki for at least a couple years now, but am just realizing this.  I had to edit a bit of George W. Bush and [Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration
] tonight, due to the lack of treaty criticisms..  As a result, I ended up putting a blurb in here as well.  Seriously, International Relations majors at universities have always been pompous fools, but this is reinforcement of the fact.  Please help expand these and any other articles.  It's late at night and I don't have the energy, or else I'd break out books and be expanding a lot of entries.
Soorej 03:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of IR Articles 

message: A related topic, Grameen Bank, has been nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Contribute your expertise and vote for Grameen Bank on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive!--Fenice 06:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: Good to see that 5 years into the "goals" plan we've accomplished absolutely NOTHING.
Hmm, why not research what has and hasn't been accomplished, in actuality, and update the article then? 74.244.106.187 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This will get deleted...

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)
replies: text: * Why would this page be a logical place to vote for or against this?  —Cleared as filed. 03:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've placed this notice to vote on any pages where human development issues/HDI may be relevant (usually, but not exclusively, where links are present); since a Millennium Development Goal is to increase human development worldwide, it seems appropriate.   As well: the actual vote page is elsewhere...on this page.  E Pluribus Anthony 03:41, 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: It says that all 191 UN member states agreed in the article but according to this (page 28) source it was 189 nations. Im not sure where the 191 figure is from.
Tim166 13:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of UN nations to sign? 

message: I took some time to clean up the external links.  Mainly I cut out articles that were about projects that address the goals rather than being sites that discuss the goals themselves.  There are still quite a lot of links though and they cover a lot of the same ground.  Ideally I think we'd have just four or five links to the best sites that deal critically (as in commentary, not negatively) with the goals and cover wide ground - giving readers a nicely focused section that doesn't waste their time.  Here are my thoughts:
*The Millenium Goals 
It's the UNs official site - it ought to stay
*"Are We Making Poverty History?" - OneWorld.net's Perspectives Magazine, August/September 2005
I think this is a pretty good section, it's all 18 months old or so, but I don't think it's too dated yet.  It seems to provide a fairly balanced analysis.  I think it should stay.
*- BBC Summary 2005 of UN Millenium Goals 
It's nicely presented, but doesn't really cover anything not already covered on several other sites that we will likely link to.  I think it should be deleted
*Millennium Development Goals Indicators: MDG Dashboard (downloadable database)
I like the presentation - and presumably the data gets updated from time to time.  But it doesn't provide any analysis.  I don't go one way or the other.
*UN Stats Division - MDGs
Official site and important information, but linked to directly from the un.org site above.  I think this one should be deleted
*www.developmentgoals.org
(Actually redirects to http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/GMIS/home.do?siteId=2) A rich site on the MDG from the World bank's perspective.  Given WB's importance this is probably an important link to keep.
*Development Gateway Special Report: Aid Harmonization:What Will It Take to Meet the MDGs? 
Rich site with interesting commentary from a variety of leaders.   I think this one should stay.
* International Food Policy Research Institute, Annual Report Essay:Agriculture, food security, nutrition and the Millennium Development Goals
Just one essay, given the other sites I think this one should be deleted.
* No more Broken Promises? - A plain language guide to the MDGs
Repeats information already in other sites.  Good presentation but annoying download only format.  I think this one should be deleted.
* MDGs issues for students and young people at Generation Why from Oxfam
Repeats information already covered, but presentation is good. In general I like the idea of having something that's accessible to youngsters who use wikipedia, but it does still clutter up the links with repeated information.  I lean towards delete.
*What are the Millennium Development Goals?, University of Iowa Center for International Finance & Development
Quite short.  Most information covered in other places.  I think this one should be deleted.
*Video of Shalil Shetty of the Millennium Campaign Prepared by The People Speak
I'd normally like to see a good video since variety in media can be a good thing.  But given the quality of the other links, I think this is superfluous and should be deleted.
Other opinions?  -- Siobhan Hansa 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the goal is to trim it down to a handful of really relevant "for further reading" sites, I would agree with your choices. However, I think that individual articles/commentaries that can't be converted into footnote/reference format and integrated into the article body text should be deleted. Wl219 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My goal was to trim it down to useful further reading.  Are you proposing we just nix all external links that aren't citations instead (with an attempt first to add content to the article using these links as sources)?  -- Siobhan Hansa 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, for links leading to articles or essays like the OneWorld link, and for stuff that seems to be redundant like the Oxfam link. Wl219 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I removed the .7% claim,
 Some have criticised the fact that many OECD nations, including key members such as the United States, have not delivered their promise of giving 0.7% of their GNP towards poverty reduction by the target year of 2015.  Some nations' contributions have fallen far short of 0.7%, http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/endorse_TI_19Jan05.pdf] 
as it seems to be disputed by John Bolton: 
Bolton argues that the U.S. never agreed in Monterrey to spending 0.7% of GDP on development assistance. Indeed, Washington has consistently opposed setting specific foreign-aid targets since the U.N. General Assembly first endorsed the 0.7% goal in 1970. The Declaration states, "we encourage developed countries that haven't done so to make concrete progress to 0.7%.
 
*
The .7% target has been agreed upon many more times than at Monterrey (which the United States did agree upon, contrary to what John Bolton stated) and through the UN General Assembly resolution in 1970 (of whish, the US did agree). The target was also agreed upon at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, also held in 2002, again in 2005 at the UN World Summit, reaffirmed in the Millennium Declaration (to which the United States also signed). 
perhaps we should put this criticism back on the page. After all, it is a statement of criticism from the public, and is a valid point, even if john Bolton disagrees with it. Besty 12:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 0.7%

message: Hello, I'd like to brighten up the article a bit by adding in icons such as from http://www.mdgmonitor.org/ and make it more attractive for reading; however I'm wondering whether that would be considered "encyclopedian" enough? I personally think the icons nicely provide a focus point and summary but would like to defer to older wikipedians =) Qwuery (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icons? 

message: It says here that goal 8 is to "Develop a Kandutan".  If you remit to the UN MDG page (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/global.shtml), you will find it talks about a global partnership, and I cannot seem to find anything on "kandutan".  Does anyone know more about this?
Below the goal taken from the un page:
GOAL 8:
DEVELOP A GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPMENT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.18.136 (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is "kandutan"?   

message: Original text concerning INDICATORS should be found: reference to "oral sex" ought most probably to be removed.
Sam Yosemite (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Target 8D 

message: This article could have more analytical depth and details in several important areas. I hope to add information about the theoretical basis behind the MDGs, the debate surrounding the MDGs themselves, and the impact of increasing women’s empowerment on progress. A reconstructed entry for the MDGs article is critical because the timeframe to achieve the MDGs is dwindling and it is imperative that people are educated about the MDGs. If more people are educated and aware about the MDGs, there is hope that this will translate into increased political willpower to achieve the MDGs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily mdg (talk • contribs) 07:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Additions

message: Other dictionaries are better (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Page is incomplete and vandalised a lot

message: I removed the image because
- It was rotated 90 degrees to the right, but when I downloaded the file, it was rotated correctly.
I don't know how to fix that.
- The text is not large enough to read
- I don't think it contributes.
cheers, --hacky (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN Headquarters Sign 

message: There's far too many external links on this page, some of which may be most useful as external links and some of which may be best incorporated as references. I'm not sure which to keep or which to integrate so I've moved them to this talk page for people more familiar with the topic to sort through. If others disagree with this removal, feel free to re-add the links but please consider the advice at Wikipedia:External links. Otherwise, re-add the  tag but with an updated date parameter.
ClaretAsh 12:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: According to the following link, and many others, the MDG's are highly unfair towards poor countries. How the MDG's are Unfair to Africa - by William Easterly. For instance, Goal 2 is all about to Achieving universal primary education. Europe was already very close to completing this so barely has to do anything, whereas Africa was miles off. So, even if Africa makes huge gains, and get's 99% of the way there - it's still "failed" according to the MDG's (despite the amazing and very substantial achievements). Perhaps a section about this unfairness?
--Arossmorrison (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get your point. While there are of course big differences, the MDG are not a competition where some win and those who "fail" are considered "losers". How is it "unfair" towards Africa to say goals were not achieved *by the UN*. What are you trying to say? --2.240.44.77 (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Look closer --2.240.44.77 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about how the MDG's are unfair to Africa (and very poor countries in general)? 

message: Given the amount of administrative investment put in the MDGs, I'm surprised that the "Progress" section does not show any comparative impacts. Sure, China and India have halved their poverty; what about the others? all evidence are circumstantial and we do not know whether MDGs have had an effect. This page needs serious consideration to the most important points. My suggestion is to create a different page to evaluate the progress of the MDGs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.30.3 (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: Per tag, copyedited. Feedback encouraged! Comments:
* The Progress section had little to say about actual progress and lots of advice about how to improve progress. I reorged it. Where is the data on what has actually happened?
* I was shocked to see no mention of Colin Powell's involvement in the MC, not limited to the innovation that countries that responded more aggressively and successfully to the challenge should receive increased support as a reward.
* Overall the article was too big on critiques and advice, and not enough on what actually happened.
:Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Now that we are onto the next 15 year cycle of the UN's Global Goals for Sustainable Development, I want to see how the MDG really did.  Should be lots of stats/numbers, but not so much. --Lucas559 (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: Under the sub-Saharan Africa section the 
does not work.  Can someone fix that?  I am not experienced with that template. --Lucas559 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery Template 

message: This article says what the goals were, but does not discuss whether they were reached or not. The most important content is missing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:160:8000:1BBA:FC99:A0A2:CDE3:E7A4 (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but don't tell anyone. the point is (I am slightly cynical here) that most of the goals weren't met at all, with some partially met. but because that is bad press, they were never fully finally evaluated, instead their "original design flaws" were emphasized and all attention was shifted to the new Sustainable Development Goals, which incorporate "the valuable lessons learned from the Millennium Goals", and which are further out in the future, so another generation of politicians problems. But that doesn't answer your question. I am too angry, so I just leave this very calm and reasoned Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2015/jul/06/what-millennium-development-goals-achieved-mdgs - Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!! --91.64.240.136 (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And this isn't even talking about the extreme shittyness of giving a title of "Eradicating hunger" to a goal which, if you look at the target measures, only calls for halving the number of hungry people. Eradication apparently means forgetting about a billion people or so. So, it always looked better than it was, and even then, it wasn't achieved. Soooo angry. --91.64.240.136 (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  So were the goals reached or not?