Talk:Developed country/Archive 4

Cyprus, Czech Republic, Malta, Slovakia are developed country?

These countries are advanced economy. But not developed. They are advanced developing country. --211.179.112.45 (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• They are in the very high category. yes they are developed. 178.59.154.78 (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And the Czech Republic now in the DAC (Development Assistance Committee) group in OECD, along with other 24 states. Good to see how the post-communist trauma slowly but gradually disappears and vanishes... I hope the politically incorrect view of CZ as the developing country is gone. We are not in 90-ies, guys!

No, these ex-Soviet bloc Eastern European countries are very poor and underdeveloped, including Poland, which is still very poor, technologically underdeveloped and heavily reliant on aid money coming from the rich and developed Western European countries of the European Union like United Kingdom, France, Austria and Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B044:B07:4489:7885:8E31:DBDA (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Quartiles or Top 30 (Newsweek and Economist lists)

I believe we should follow the Human Development Report model and list only the countries in the top quartile for both Newsweek and Economist rankings.

If anybody has a good reason to show the Top 30 countries of each list instead of the top quartile, please reply here. Cheers. Pristino (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is what you claimed, just one year ago, on November 11, on Talk:List of countries by Human Development Index:

So, according to the UNDP, 3/4ths of the world's countries are destined to be "developing" forever. The earlier method was much better. The UNDP should have used 0.8 as a new cut-off for developed countries. The big problem with that is that a developed country like Portugal would have been left out of the group and then everybody would have said the new HDI was flawed. My 2 cents.

My only peso. HOOTmag (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that the rankings for the Newsweek survey that are shown in the article are for the overall ranking in that survey, not the quality of life. Yet the title of the section is "Newsweek Quality of Life survey". The quality-of-life rankings in that survey are different from the overall rankings. Athenean (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Athenian. This list is misleading. It should be altered to reflect only the "quality of life" component of the Newsweek or removed altogether. Regarding the "Quartiles", I really dont understand why we need to include this here!Nochoje (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that Newsweek explains how its total index is calculated, as well as how Quality of Life is calculated:

• Their total index - comprises 5 elements: Education, Health, Economic Dynamism, Political Environment, Quality of Life.
• Whearas their "Quality of Life" - comprises 7 elememnts: income inequality (GINI), gender gap, percent living on less than 2 Dollars per day, consumption per capita, homicide rate, environmental health, unemployment rate.

HOOTmag (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. What was flawed in the 2010 HDR was that they labelled countries in the top quartile as "developed". They dropped that misleading qualifier in the 2011 report. Showing the top quartile is less arbitrary than, say, the top 30 countries. Pristino (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the UN dropped the quartile approach, I don't see why we should adopt it. That just makes no sense. Both quartile or the top 30 are equally arbitrary in my opinion, but using the quartile leaves out some countries that are generally considered developed. Athenean (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC) ado

The UN has not "dropped the quartile approach". They still use it in the 2011 HDR released a week ago. What they dropped was the label of "developed" given to countries in the top quartile. A quartile is less arbitrary (for Wikipedia to use) than a "top 30" type of selection, due to their widespread use in statistics. Pristino (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So they have stopped calling countries in the top quartile "developed", yet you are arguing we do the exact opposite, i.e. cut off the countries below the top quartile? I'm sorry, but that just makes no sense to me. Another problem with using the top quartile would be that that would remove the UK an South Korea from the Economist survey (both developing countries, I'm sure you would agree), and countries such as Israel, Portugal, and Slovenia from the Newsweek study (again, all of the above are developed countries by any stretch). Athenean (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Newsweek relevant index

Newsweek explains how its total index is calculated, as well as how Quality of Life is calculated:

• Their total index - comprises 5 elements: Education, Health, Economic Dynamism, Political Environment, Quality of Life.
• Whearas their "Quality of Life" - comprises 7 elememnts: income inequality (GINI), gender gap, percent living on less than 2 Dollars per day, consumption per capita, homicide rate, environmental health, unemployment rate.

HOOTmag (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Political Environment has nothing to do with how developed a country is. The title of the section is "Newsweek Quality of Life Survey", so the rankings should be by Quality of Life, not the total index. Whatever the case, could you at least not mess up the columns? There should be 10 countries in each column, not 9 and 9 and 12. Athenean (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• This article is about "developed country", rather than about countries having a high Quality of life.
• The only index that formally measures "development" - is the Human "Development" Index, that measures: Education Health and Economy.
• Newsweek's "Quality of life" index - does not measure education, nor health nor economy, so this index has nothing to do with our article about "developed" countries.
• Among Newsweek's indices, the index which is "closest" to our article, is Newsweek's total index, called "Newsweek's best country index", which measures: Education, Health, and Economic Dynamism (along with Political Environment, and Quality of Life), because it measures what is measured by Human "Development" Index (along with two other components).
• The stable version included: Newsweek's total ranking, under the wrong title: "Newsweek's Quality of Life index" - instead of the correct title: "Newsweek's Best Country Index". Undoubtedly, the stable version sould be changed, but what should be changed - is the wrong title, rather than the very total ranking, because Newsweek's total ranking - which measures Education, Health and Economic Dynamism (along with political environment and qulaity of life) is closest to our article about "Developed countries", as it is closest to what is measured by: Human "Development" Index.
• If anybody wishes to change my new version, please revert to the stable version (i.e. the version which included Newsweek's Best Country Index - under the wrong title "Newsweek's Quality of Life Index"), from which we will get to the future new version - after a full discussion.

HOOTmag (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Athenian. Political environment or Economic Dynamism has nothing to do with how developed a country is. A highly developed country might not have the economic dynamism a developing country might have, yet having a much higher quality of life. A developing country HAS NEVER a higher quality of life than a developed country. Quality of life is the prime factor.Nochoje (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Newsweek's Quality of life, does not measure what is measured by the indices measuring development, so Newsweek's Quality of Life index has nothing to do with our article about developed countries. For more detailes, see my full response to Athenian. HOOTmag (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The total index includes Political Environment and Economic Dynamism (most developing countries are more economically dynamic that most developed countries), which have nothing to do with how developed a country is. So 2 out of the 5 components of Newsweek's total index have nothing to do with how developed a country is. In fact, the economic dynamism index goes in the opposite direction. Athenean (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, Newsweek's Quality of Life index - has 0 relevant components out of its 7 irrelevant components, while Newsweek's total index - as indicated in the stable version - includes most of the 3 relevant components measured by the Human Development Index, whereas the third component in Newsweek's total index - measures an economic factor, just as Human Development Index does. HOOTmag (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Income inequality (GINI), gender gap, percent living on less than 2 Dollars per day, and consumption per capita have everything to do with how developed a country is. Athenean (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

None of these components is measured in the only index which measures "development", i.e. the Human "development" index. Anyways, if you wish to revert, please revert to the stable version, until we reach an agreement. HOOTmag (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What Athenean and I try to say is that Newsweek total index, incorporates indexes that are totally irrelevant to how much "developed" e country is. While I will agree that health and education are things that shape the development of country, economic dynamism and political environment dont. For instance Belgium has been without a government for a year and a half so one would say that its political environment is crap. Does this mean its not developed, or it needs to "loose points" because of that? My example might be a little bit over the edge, but you get the point. Anyway,in my opinion, bottom line is that Newsweek total index shouldnt be here at all. But if you want to keep it, at least we keep the Quality of life index of it.Nochoje (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Newsweek's Quality of life index comprises 7 components, none of which is measured by the only index which measures "development", i.e. the Human Development Index.
• The stable version shows Newsweek's total index that measures most of the components measured by the Human development Index.
• Newsweek's total index is much more relevant to the article "Developed country" than Newsweek's Quality of Life index is.
• The way Newsweek defines "Quality of Life" - is irrelevant to the way the term "Developed country" is defined.

Anyway, in any case of dispute, the stable version should be preserved - untill an agreement is reached.

HOOTmag (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What "stable" version? The "quartile" stuff was never accepted, or "stable". Newsweek's quality of life index has everything to do with how developed a country is. It's been used in this article for ages. It's definitely more "stable" than your version. Seems more like you are looking for allies in your revert-war. By the way, I would really stop reverting if I were you. Athenean (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I, too, would stop reverting if I were you, because you revert to an unstable version, whereas I revert to this Athenian's stable version of Newsweek's chapter.

I recommend to change the title into: "Newsweek's Best Country Index", because this is the formal name given by Newsweek itself to its total index, however, as long as you reject this title, we will have to adhere to Athenian's stable version of Newsweek's chapter, untill an agreement is reached.

HOOTmag (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly advise you, to stop reverting. You will get reported by two people at the same time. That can't be good....Nochoje (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You too will be reported because you revert to an unstable version without getting to an agreement. HOOTmag (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an agreement between 2 people so far and you are all alone. And you keep reverting to push your own views. Stop it.Nochoje (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You can all stop it. Nobody is in the right in an edit war, the mere act of participating is wrong. If you can't resolve this dispute here, look into dispute resolution. Further edit warring after protection expires can and will lead to all edit warriors being blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nochoje has essentially created a self-made index/ranking, which indicates original research, an act that is prohibited at Wikipedia. Here are the reasons why I have reverted his/her edit, in light of reading the discussion above and the edit history:

1. There is no source for the ranking of Newsweek's ranking that he/she has edited.

2. It's a creation of his/her own imagination to pick certain criteria and make up his/her own rankings.

3. The index itself was never a "quality of life" index as stated in the source. Those words are never found anywhere in the source. Hence claiming it is a "quality of life" index is original research.

4. Even if he/she did make up his own rankings, there is no source for the data he/she used.

Therefore, Nochoje's edits are invalid and I have reverted his/her edits to the version that complies with Wikipedia's regulations.Purpleflights (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

When socking, you could at least try to make your talkpage posts not look identical to those of your previous account. I mean, really. Athenean (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that Nochoje and Athenean (both suspected sock accounts) are using "socking" as a way of blocking anyone who are against their views, which is abusing Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. Purpleflights (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I was just wondering if anyone realized that the rank order is incorrect, as in, the countries are not even close to being in the order Newsweek put them in. I don't know how to fix that sort of thing, but it kind of seems like someone should. Thanks, Dreamer222105 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The rank order is indeed out of order when compared to Newsweek's rankings. Somebody made up their own criteria for the rankings from the discussion above. Seventeenideas (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The rank order is NOT incorrect. If you were a little bit more careful you would see that the rank is based on Newsweeks QUALITY OF LIFE data instead of the "worlds best countries" index which is what you have posted. In this article we focus on "developed country" which has to do with quality of life, instead of "worlds best countries" index of Newsweek, which includes irrelevant data such as political environment...Please read carefully the Talk page and you will understand.Nochoje (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That's right but why exclude the education and health criteria that is part of the Newsweek index? You based the rankings on just the "quality of life" criteria, whereas the Newsweek's ranking takes into account education and health, which are two major components of the Human Development Index of the UN. Political environment is very important to being a developed country too. For example, China's dictatorship makes it rank far behind others because the people don't have any freedom (i.e. low ranking on Freedom House rating, which is included in their methodology). This results in low quality of life. While it is true that there are components that do not directly contribute to quality of life, I think a substantial majority are highly relevant, so we should use the overall index, not just the "quality of life" criteria. I'm not saying that it is a bad idea, it's just that by including just the "quality of life" criteria, you're excluding too many important components that are highly essential to quality of life - education and health. Seventeenideas (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with HOOTmag&Seventeenideas's opinion. Overall score is better than Qol. Kaiserble (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Newsweeks "world best country"'s Education, Health, Economic, Political, Qol 5 elements can measure developed or not. like HDI.

Nochoje's opinion is "they can't measure developed or not and Qol only can measure developed or not" but it was only your POV.

political environment not irrelvant data. political environment can influence on people's Qol and right.

and education, health, economic elements are important element that can measure developed or not.

I don't agree that ignore "education, health, economic" elements. it is as important as Qol element. Kaiserble (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I will just chime in and say that I agree with the above user because quality of life and developed countries are a different matter. Nochoje is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet and appears to be introducing significant original research and personal bias by choosing the criteria he wants, in this case, quality of life. Which is forbidden at Wikipedia via WP:OR. As the above user says, you need to look at the overall picture, not just quality of life - People really need to stop cherrypicking. Massyparcer (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate data

The tabular data in this article looks like it duplicates that in Human Development Index, and would probably be best removed from this article. Bazza (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The rankings only show those of the "very high development" category, hence, it only shows the rankings relevant to this article and is not a duplicate of the original HDI article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleflights (talk • contribs) 22:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Economist's index is misleading and irrelevant to this article

I have noticed that the Economist's index contains components that do not define the quality of life of a developed country. Here are the components I found irrelevant:

1. Weather. Their "climate and geography" category measures weather as part of the index. This suggests that countries which are warmer or colder are more developed, which is misleading.
2. Church attendance. Their "community life" category gives a plus to a country with high church attendance, which is Christian-centric, highly discriminating and not taking into account the diverse religions and cultures around the world.
3. Political part. Their "political freedom" category measures civil liberty, which while can be an indicator, is not included in this article. We should be including the Democracy Index and other freedom indexes if this was the case.

In addition, this index has never been updated since 2005, over 6 years old as we are moving onto 2012 in a few days. The world has changed a lot since then and many countries have made rapid progresses in development, hence this index is now inaccurate. For these reasons I have removed this outdated and misleading index. Purpleflights (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what you have noticed, the economist quality of life index is a well respected index as far as quality of life is concerned. Since 2005 is the latest "version" of this index we don't really have to care about this. On the other hand I have noticed that you continuously do changes in newsweeks index contrary to concensous as per discussion. I advise you to stop doing this. Thanks. Nochoje (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should ignore what Purpleflights has mentioned. Even if the economist index is "well-respected" (could you give me a source on that please?) and it is the "latest" version (when it's indeed over 6 years old and they don't seem bothered to ever update it), it seems silly to put up an index that measures totally irrelevant stuff like weather and church attendance. How weird. The argument here seems to have no consensus aside from two people, so there's no point in putting up this ridiculous index. McBees (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The consensus seems clear to remove the Economist's index. Measuring quality of life using weather and religion is absurd by anyone's view. Pilotwagers (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually quite the opposite. And actually there is a strong possibility that YOU are a sockpuppet of the banned Purpleflights and McBees.Nochoje (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nochoje is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Other than that though, the Economist's 2005 index is superseded by a much more recent Where-to-be-born Index published for 2013. The original 2005 index is gone at Wikipedia because obviously, you can't be using a decade old index, which would be highly misleading. And the folks at the Economist clearly agreed with that and published an updated one indeed. I'm putting my comments here because there are some IPs coming out of nowhere that are trying to put back this defunct list - Two completely different IPs that have no edit histories doing nothing but immediately emulating the indefinitely blocked Nochoje? It sounds like we are having sockpuppets again.. Massyparcer (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Turkey

today it's 2012. so dont come with sources by 2004 or something. Turkeys market are developed and it's a developed country. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_developed_country_list and the second thing is that greece and portugal are often claimed in the european news as developing countries. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_sovereign-debt_crisis 88.64.182.125 (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comments: Even in 2012, Turkey is still considered a Developing Country, or even more formally a Newly industrialized country. This means that it has not yet achieved full status of a developed country. Only CIA claims Turkey to be "developed" and not any other international organization. Turkey has a medium GDP per capita and quite low HDI ranking 92, behind countries like Albania. On the other hand, both Portugal and Greece are considered (for quite some years now) as developed countries, regardless of any sovereign issues they currently face. Both of them (and especially Greece) have high GDP per capita and also rank among the top 30 in HDI. Hope this helps. Nochoje (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Turkey is still an upper middle income country just like Russia; they have to be high income at last Nlivataye (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

"Average disposable wage of OECD members" - missing Estonia

Can someone figure out the Estonian data for that list? Estonia is an OECD member, but the disposable wage list doesnt display the country. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaanMatti (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

CIA List of Developed Countries and Less Developed Countries

Hi,

I found really authentic links of CIA List of Developed Countries as well as List of Less Developed Countries here:

1. List of Developed Countries (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html#D).

2. List of Less Developed Countries (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html#L).

Hope you all find these links useful and you all will clarify with some of your misunderstandings about some of the countries that are listed here as developed countries.

Good luck, and please don't fight. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.193.170 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Canada

I tried to confirm Canada's supposed "648" plunge in average wages, but could not. Could somebody please direct me to this data? I find the current Canadian data hard to believe as Canada's average wages are slightly higher than the US average and Canadian wage growth (due to Canada's stronger resource based economy) has been higher than US wage growth in recent years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcolony (talk • contribs) 08:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Hi, even though Hong Kong scientifically is part of China, it has a very different economy, education system, health system and so on. But it seems that on these Wikipedia pages, some do not include Hong Kong in it. Also, the most maps about the surveys (sources) that have Hong Kong in it do not show Hong Kong as being different from the Mainland. Please get this issue fixed. Thank You, David. S 07:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Israel in Asia?

Israel was in the Middle East last time checked. I don't think an entire country can just jump up and leave to another continent! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.118.128 (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Middle East is a geographic region, not a continent. Israel is both in the geographic region of the middle east and on the continent of Asia. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Israel, Armenia and Cyprus are located entirely in Asia. Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan are located mostly in Asia, partially in Europe. Indonesia is located mostly in Asia, partially in Oceania. The United States is located mostly in North America, partially in Oceania. Panama is located mostly in North America, partially in South America. Egypt is located mostly in Africa, partially in Asia. 2001:8003:9008:1301:80EC:5F72:1A40:4EE0 (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Powerful?!

January 3 added: powerful (should read: less powerful) at the beginning. I have a feeling that this is unnecessary at this point, since the whole text is about industrialization (not about power). So proposal: delete. Can anyone agree (and perform the edit)?Super48paul (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Contradictions

Hi everyone! The map of developing countries on Wikipedia shows countries that this article claims are developed. Saudi Arabia and Argentina are just two examples. Why the inconsistency?WACGuy (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No contradiction. The map you're referring to deals with countries having a "very high Human Developed Index". However, this concept of "Human Development" does not overlap the general concept of Development, which is more dependent on the common usage. It seems that the meaning of the general Development is more influenced by the concept of Developed market and by the IMF Advanced Country list. HOOTmag (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Developed country

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Developed country's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UNDP2015":

• From Human Development Index: "Human Development Report 2015 – "Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience"" (PDF). HDRO (Human Development Report Office) United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved 14 December 2015.
• From List of countries by Human Development Index: "Human Development Report 2015 – "Rethinking Work for Human Development"" (PDF). HDRO (Human Development Report Office) United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved 14 December 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

HDI Statistics

There is a more recent issue of HDI numbers... the UN has published it. I think it might be more relevant if people placed these numbers instead? I'm not editing it though because I can't really figure out the editing box. It's confusing. Sorry. Also, I think a bit about which places have information about development might be good! Fireflamedancer (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on Lists

This page contained lists that did not classify countries as being developed vs non developed, which is the premise of the page. Lists on wages and Gallup incomw were deleted because they did not do this, are duplicates, and it opens the door to including other lists on the same subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There has never been a premise on "classification" to begin with. Let's not invent rules out of the air. This article is about developed countries and income is deemed the most important indicator for this and as such, the lists are crucial and fundamental to this article. Pizzamall (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously a page on developed countries should talk about lists, like HDI, which classify them as such. Income is important, but the Gallup list is only one source and actually has accuracy issues as mentioned in the footnote of "median household income." Can I therefore put other lists of household income? And there are other lists on this website for wages and consumption. Shall I copy and paste these as well? What about life expectancy? There's dozens of indicators which is another issue in that you are opening the door to having this page swamped with data presented elsewhereLneal001 (talk)

I added an income list which is based on disposable household income and is not survey based, but rather based on National Accounts data.Lneal001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

2011? Seriously? You have gotta be kidding me. It doesn't even include all the OECD countries. And you call those existing lists "inferior". As far as these lists are concerned, any list from a reliable source that is up-to-date can be included. The point of a developed country is primarily economic development - Yeah we can include life expectancy and such, but they aren't of high priority. Wikipedia has always been open to new entries and you are not the one to decide what goes on this article or not. The argument can be used equally on National Accounts - It only measures the average income - NOT the MEDIAN income, which is far more accurate. Gallup is the most reliable polling organization and a highly respected source, so I see no reason to remove it on grounds of "inaccuracy". Seems WP:OR to me. Any source material can stay so long as it qualifies as a reliable published source under WP:V. If you want to add or remove a list, you must get a consensus first - It's as simple as that. You must follow the Wikipedia editing rules. See WP:Consensus. Until you get consensus, this article will remain in the version before you started disrupting it. That's just how Wikipedia works. Please do not engage in an unnecessary edit war. If you think the Wikipedia consensus procedure is a joke, you should stop editing. Pizzamall (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I added 2015 income data which now includes ALL OECD countries. The Gallup data, while median, is based on a single survey back from 2006-2012 and quite frankly does not show very accurate information when compared to exterior comparisons. The 2015 is indeed an average but because it is because on National Accounts data, it is not subject to survey errors, underreporting, and has the same uniform definition among all countries. As far as including wages, I think that since income is already included, there is no need to include wages, which is a subset of income. Also, the notion that life expectancy is "less important" is your opinion not a fact, and exactly why I said from the beginning that including these other factors would lead to a "slippery slope" of users wanting to swamp the page with dozens of other indicators. Someone might say that caloric intake is most important, so we would be forced to include that. Someone else may say consumption per capita, so we would have to include that. At the end of the day, the page should only include sources that classify countries as Developed vs no developed, and NOT indicators you THINK make such determination. But for purposes of consensus, I decided to agree to include Income and added the most comprehensive income definition available. If people want to read on Median Income, we have a separate page just for that. Lneal001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible Inaccuracy on the "World Bank high-income economies in 2016" Graphic

French Guiana isn't highlighted on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:400:40A3:8417:5917:74DA:4230 (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

What in Wikipedia there isn't

In wikipedia should be written a new article about the concept od "' Advanced economy" that is different from the concept of "' Developed economy"'.People otherwise have no clear ideas.Kingofwoods (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Birth rate, Death rate, population growth rate?

I'm not entirely sure about this but I think I will ask just in case; Developing_country is one of the articles that does this under the Definition heading, I did not see it in this article. It has the economic qualifications for a developed country but I don't see the qualifications based on birth rate, death rate and growth rate. I have a suspicion the HDI is completely explanatory with that, but the Developing_country article has that and a definition. Shouldn't the article be written to also allow a clear meaning to those who don't know what the Human Development Index is or don't want to look it up? Thanks,TroyLChainsington (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Developed country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221215135/http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no160/104.shtml to http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no160/104.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Advanced countries

Please notice, that no country is defined as a "developed country" - by any international body. As quoted in the article, from the the United Nations Statistics Division: "There is no established convention for the designation of developed and developing countries or areas in the United Nations system".

Please notice also, that all lists recognized by international countries, are not lists of "countries by development", but rather lists of "countries by human development", or "countries by advancement", or "countries by level of income", and the like.

Please notice also, that "development" is not the same as "human development", nor have the "humanly developed countries" ever been defined as the "very high human development countries".

as far as concepts recognized by international bodies are concerned, our article "developed country" only indicates lists of countries ranked by close concepts (recognized by those bodies), e.g. "very high human development countries", as well as "advanced countries", "high income OECD countries", and the like.

HOTmag (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

IMF reports in the list i posted all advanced countries.They are reported also below in the article.If you find somenthing that denies the existance of advanced countries that are more evoluted than the developed ones notify it.The difference between adsvance and developed must be marked well.An article about advanced countries lacks a lot.An article should be written about advanced countries too.It's main in economy.Thanks.79.19.186.41 (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Please notice, that IMF's source doesn't mention the concept of "Developed" (countries), but rather the concept of "Advanced" (economies) only, so how can you use that source for proving your statement that "Only part of developed countries have also more evoluted economic level"? You continuously ignore the fact, that no international body has ever provided the list of Developed countries, so no source from any international body can be used for proving your statement that some "developed" countries are not "advanced" countries or that only part of developed countries have also more evoluted economic level. Please notice, that every statement added to the article must be supported by sources, whereas no such source has ever been provided. HOTmag (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

In addition to what HOTmag said, constant edit warring is not the way to go about making your case. Multiple editors have opposed the inclusion of that line in the article. As I said the last time you were reverted, you should establish consensus here on the talk page before continuing to push these changes into the article. Otherwise, this will get nowhere fast.

I'll also remind you of the 3 revert rule on this encyclopedia. Continuing to revert changes without consensus may result in a block from editing. I'd advise you to read over the guidelines posted to your talk page more thoroughly to avoid these problems in the future. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 11:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Advanced and developed are different, in fact IMF classify them in different way.I've no time to waste with ignorant people.Better to check directly IMF than here. Study better.Or be in good feith. Austria is advanced and Russia not e. g..You seem to cover certain huge differences in this article.An ignorant can trust you , but not a culture guy.79.19.186.41 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"Advanced and developed are different". For saying that, you must give an example, of a developed country which is not an "Advanced" country. The IMF source is irrelevant, because it doesn't mention "developed countries".

"in fact IMF classify them in different way". The IMF source doesn't mention "developed countries", so how can you claim that IMF classifies "Advanced" and "Developed" in a different way?

"Austria is advanced and Russia". Correct, but who told you that Russia is a Developed country? If you had a source saying that Russia should be regarded as a Developed country, then this - along with the IMF source - could be a proof for your statement that "Only part of developed countries have also more evoluted economic level", but as long as you don't provide such a source about Russia being a "Developed country" then - the IMF source which refers to Advanced countries rather than to Developed economies - proves nothing about your statement which refers to Developed countries rather than to Advanced economies.

HOTmag (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Map showing HDI at the top of the page is wrong

It contains countries that are not listed in the cited UN data. Notably North Korea (listed in the UN report, but not given an HDI value) and Taiwan (not listed at all). An argument could be made to include estimated HDIs for these on the map, but the caption should specify that. Alternatively, Taiwan could just be given the same ranking as China (Republic of), in line with UN standard practice on the issue. There may be other similar issues, it may be worth comparing the map with the original list. Can someone with the skills/time to fix this do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.73.109 (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Mean Disposable Income conflict

@Raulbeans and Lneal001: There's little point in continuing to revert each other. Instead of an edit war, why don't we hash out the issue on the talk page first? Perhaps we can start with stating your cases as to why you each think your version should be the one used? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 07:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure. He is saying that the original list excluded some OECD COUNTRIES and not including 2016. The source can easily be used to satisfy these concerns, it is just somebody has to do it. Instead, he deleted the list and is using figures from a totally difference source based on household surveys, which he then coverts using PPPs from another source. In addition he uses the wrong PPP, as well. You have to use the PPP for consumption NOT GDP. Lneal001 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The source EXCLUDES other OECD countries and is very outdated. I would say getting rid of this list is the best way forward if we can't agree on anything. Income alone has never been a good indicator of a developed country anyway and using such an incomplete and totally outdated list is unacceptable. Raulbeans (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Colour Scheme on HDI Map

This may not be the place to talk about this but I would suggest that the HDI map at the top of the page is switched back to its old colour scheme, which makes it easier to tell the different shades apart. Benica11 (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan

I don't think advocacy for Taiwan's recognition should be undertaken through this (or any other) article. El_C 06:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, I have semiprotected the article. There is a limit to the amount of advocacy-driven disruption that we are willing to entertain on Wikipedia. El_C 06:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Poland, Romania and Croatia are considered developed countries according to the UN

Link: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/WESP2019_BOOK-ANNEX-en.pdf

The map at the top of the article should omit "and the UN", since only the IMF now considers the three to be developing countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:116F:4002:AC00:4104:6EE3:4858:E3B8 (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

UN list needs update

Source: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/

Why the UN still exclude the likes of Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan from their list of developed countries? I reckon they should update their list to at least include Singapore and South Korea. 2001:8003:9008:1301:80EC:5F72:1A40:4EE0 (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• IMF advanced UN least developed.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"Developed" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Developed. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 5#Developed until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. gnu57 16:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Gulf countries

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and Kuwait are all high income countries and a very high HDI with Qatar being among the top 5 richest by per capita income and UAE having a diversified economy and post industrial oil economy so whatever we think of these absolute to constitutional monarchies I think they are developed countries Nlivataye (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

High-Income Countries are not equivalent to developed group, especially for Gulf countries and several small Island Developing States, they are still largely relied on petroleum industry and remained in high-percentage of Primary sector and Secondary sector amongst their economic composition. The Gulf country such as Kuwait, is easily effected by global oil-price volatility. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-economy-iif/gulf-countries-to-experience-worst-economic-crisis-in-history-iif-idUSKBN2390M4/ , https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/kuwaits-fiscal-crisis-requires-bold-reforms/ , https://www.arabianbusiness.com/politics-economics/458217-kuwait-facing-immediate-crisis-as-it-seeks-cash-to-plug-deficit This factor made their economic growth vulnerable and being sensitive in price change of raw material supply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.195.130.73 (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)