Talk:Newly industrialized country

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Pakistan??

Is Pakistan in the category of newly industrialized countries?? --Mm11 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Europe

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)

[edit] Why is Argentina yellow?

The map is confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk • contribs).

[edit] OR problem

What are the source/reference of countries mentioned here? Which reference has given such a list as it is in this page? Based on which reference Saudi Arabia is there and Pakistan is not there? Please add source mentioning the names of these countries as NIC or delete such a list.Farmanesh 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you can't go article by article adding the OR tag when you don't even look at the references. In this case several books were used to create the article, so I suggest you to read those books. Thank you. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Your efforts to enhance the article is appriciated and I did not comment about other parts of article. There is a one major list in the article with name of countries. Where is the refrence for such a list? If such a list is in any of the books, which one? You should clearly mention which page of which book or link has such a list. I would be happy to check it out as I have access to a large library.
If you kindely gathered such a list from your own research and underestanding then sorry based on OR policy it should be deleted unless you CLEARLY reference them. If you used different sources then you need to mention each source for each country. OR policy is very clear. Either wikipedian gives a proper source or that part should not be in Wikipedia. Please read OR policy.
I do not delete the current list and just tag it as OR for a while so if anyone wants can clear up the sources otherwise there is the OR policy.Farmanesh 01:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no OR problem. You are just doing this to include the countries you like (maybe Iran?) as you did in several other articles. I will remove the OR tag and the fact tag since the information is well referenced by TWO books. Now, it is not my fault if you lack the ability or willingness to click a link, or to go to you local library and ask for the book. Please stop asking for the deletion of perfectly cited information, as it is considered vandalism. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
My friend there is no need for personal attack or accusation, they don't lead to healthy discussion and would only produce hatred. As I said before I am willing to look at any book or link you identify as reference. I really hope you do go and look at OR/V policies. They are here: [1] and [2].
It clearly says "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.". Anyone (including many who have just added a country like Arjentina) has the right to ask you to clearly provide the source for current list of countries.
Again, provide a clear refrnece to where there is such a list of countries identified as NIC or IT IS OR. Just giving name of 2 general books at the end of an article doesn't make it referenced.
As I see our discussion has reached a clear point, by now you either would kindley read OR/V policies and provide direct/clear reference or if you insist on current version then we need to start the "Dispute resolution" process which would bring few admins into our discussion so they can judge if you have provided clear/direct reference to list of countries in the article or not.
Again, no need for personal attack, I do respect the time and effort you have put on this article and by no way want you to feel anything personal. That said the decision to which countries should be considered NIC should be made by scholars outside wikipedia. and you need to bring real/clear/direct refrence.Farmanesh 14:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You're being stubborn. The whole article (the list of countries included) is based in those two books. I have read OR before. The list is referenced by two excellents books written by experts in the topic, so please go to you library and stop this. I'm not gonna make your research easier, go and read the full book, that's not my duty. OR can only be argumented when there is a lack or sources, and this is clearly not the case. Your lack of willingness to read the books is frustrating. Read the book. I have. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 14:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just keep in mind you can't revert the article that much. I'm calling an admin to see this issue. The list is referenced, there are two books this article is based on. So if you continue to argument OR (which this is not), I'll just report you for vandalism. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 14:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If the list is on those 2 books you need to give the exact page. It is a basic rule in refrnecing. You need to give the page.
Please just complete the refrence (give the number of pages) or if it comes from different pages say that.
I agree if you want to bring in an admin, seems you are not wishing to complete the refrence (saying where in those books have such a list). I am happy to clarify my question more if it is not clear yet: Where in those 2 books there is such a list of NIC countries?Farmanesh 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Both books have tables, and separate articles about the countries considered NICs. It is your duty to read them. Giving a reference is as easy as pointing out what book you based your work on, and that's exactly what I did. OR only says "unreferenced claims", well this is clearly not the case. Now, go and read as I did. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think our discussion is more claer now, it is on whether just giving the name of several book as refrence is eanough or you need to give the page number which you take a table/list from.
I do belive it is a basic rule in refrencing from book to provide the exact page you are getting a table/list from.
I would be happy to have a third opinion here on this so please go on and bring an admin, if I am wrong and you do not need to give the page for the table/list you brought from a book then I would not insist anymore.Farmanesh 14:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The complete and ideal reference would be providing the book, ISBN, page number etc. but that is not in discussion. You tagged the list as OR. Ok, OR says that if it a statement cannot be sourced, it should be considered OR and deleted. Well, this is not the case. There were two books (that you ignored and refused to READ) and now, I have added a new reference. Your argument of Original Research has been refuted, since there are references. The "page number" of each book is not important in this discussion, since OR doesn't say it must be given, it just says sources, and the sources are there. And, do you know a policy called WP:Assume Good Faith? You are not assuming good faith, but attacking the references as "dubious" just because you are not willing to read them. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 15:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
As for "assume good faith" I can't agree more with you. But refernce without page number is not complete and has problem with Verification policy. I did ask our question in help desk. Lets see what others think.Farmanesh 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You're not assuming good faith by "challenging" the content of the books. And your unwillingness to go to your library and ask for the book and patiently read it, proves it. You want all the work done, I'm sorry but that's not my job. If you are really interested in this matter, you should read the references provided. I read the full book, so you do it also. However, the main point is proved: there is no OR involved. Period. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
From the beginning I said OR/V policies and asked you to read both. I think our discussion is clear, lets get third person view. You say you would not give page numbers for the refrences (not to make readers work easier!) and I say it violates OR/Verifiablity policies as you need to make your refrence verifiable.Farmanesh 15:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is hilarious. You want a third person to come and give his/her opinion, instead of showing a little of good attitude, assume good faith, and willingness to go to your library and read the book. I can't provide the page number for the two books because I don't have them with me. The list of countries has always been there, so did the references. When I created the organized table (to improve the look of the article), I just assumed good faith and did it. THEN I went to my library, asked for the book and read it. I transcripted several information (about the characteristics of NICS). So, you go to your local library, read the book and add the pages if you want. I'm not gonna do that work for you. However, I just added a third reference, the chapter number and (Jesus) the page number. Now, OR is non existent, it is proved, there are references. If you want to further check this, well... read the books.AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My friend, if you read Verifiability policy you see the burden for providing clear/verifiable refrnece is on you who want to keep the improperly-refrenced list in the page. Please read the policy [3].Farmanesh 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't you read? I'll make this easy for you: I just created the table, I did not "selected" the countries, the countries were already there, so did the references. After I created the table, I went to the library to check the sources (books) and yes, they exist. I read the two books and wrote down some information. Then I came and add that info to the article.
I can't tell you the page numbers, because I didn't pay attention to that, I just copied info. However, I can't do it now (even if I want to) because I don't own the book. I'd have to go to the library again. However, the OR is non existent because the source is there. It is not unsourced, although one can argue the reference could be ideal if the page number is provided. However, that's not as important as providing the source. Now, I did provided a third new source, (with chapter number and page), because the third book I just added is with me right now. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool down my friend and take it easy, I can read :) I appricite you spending time on the article and wikipedia. That said, still until you don't provide the page numbers which has the name of these countries, the current list (which now you say you made it) is not verifiable.
Oh my God... this is just ridiculous. I can't and won't provide the page numbers for a reference I did not add, you want the page numbers? Read the books. On the other hand, the list is verifiable, because anybody can read the books and see it. However, as I repeatedly said, I did add a new reference, and added title, author, chapter and page number, aswell as the ISBN. So, the list is referenced, and now, better referenced. I won't discuss this any further with you, since it is circular and fruitless. Any addition or deletion of perfectly verifiable information, will be considered vandalism, reverted and reported. Period. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Verifiablity policy is different from OR policy (although they are close to eachother). Please read it, and sorry if you want to keep that list it is up to you to provide the page numbers. If you need more time I am fine to wait few days before deleting Verifiability violating part of the article.Farmanesh 15:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the new page number you added have the list of those countries? If it does then you need to give the refrence under the table. If not still that list is not verifiable.Farmanesh 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You ask for references (because it seems you don't see them). Then you tag them as "invalid" because you didn't like them (e.g. Iran not included). Then you argue they are not valid because the page number was not provided. Then I add a new reference, addressing your concerns about the "page", including chapter number. Now this? Clearly you're biased, this "discussion" is circular and a nonsense. One advice? READ. This is frustrating. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 16:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability problem with list of NIC countries

Someone has added name of some countries as NIC without direct refrence to where s/he got them from. The list as it stands now doesn't have verifiable refernce. If anyone wants to keep the list needs to give direct/verifiable refrence or it should be deleted.Farmanesh 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The list of countries has always been there almost since somebody created the article, aswell as the references. Those references are perfectly valid and most importantly, verifiable. Anybody willing to read the books can verify it.
  • Principles of Economics by N. Gregory Mankiw, 4th Edition 2007 (ISBN 0-32-422472-9)
  • Geography, An Integrated Approach by David Waugh, 3rd edition (ISBN 0-17-444706-X)
  • Globalization and the Transformation of Foreign Economic Policy by Paweł Bożyk, Chapter 7.3 "Newly Industrialized Countries", p.164. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2006. (ISBN 0-75-464638-6)
As a side note, minutes ago, I personally added the third reference. I added also the chapter number and the page, although it is not necessary. Title, author and ISBN are enough. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For my frined user AlexCov and others: There is an answer on our small disagreement here which confirms my view: [4] As you see if you don't give exact page number for list of those countries we need to delete them. They are arbitary my friend, someone before you added them. I don't say it is completely wrong (as you said you have seen them seperatly in books and I assume good faith). No, I am saying it is not verifiable unless someone gives exact refrence (with page number). So please take a rest, read what an admin said and come down. If you insist on your version after seeing an admins point, Verifiability policy page and my long disscussion with you; I should say you are vandalising the wikipedia policy. Please reconsider...Farmanesh 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if the person that added the references did not provided the page numbers, it is still verifiable. How can you verify it? Well, go to the library and ask for the book. However, as I repeteadly said, I added a third reference, also with a page number and chapter number. And just as a side note, not all admin think the same, and the persons that answered your question at Help Desk, are not admins. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

One MORE source

  • The Limits of Convergence by Mauro F. Guillén, Chapter 5 "Multinationals, Ideology, and Organized Labor", p.126 (Table 5.1), Princeton University Press, 2003. (ISBN 0-69-111633-4)

Your argument or OR/Verifiability is just not non existent, but also ridiculous, since the section you're tagging, doesn't lack sources. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

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)

Thanks a lot for commenting in result of Alex's request on your talk page [5]. 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)
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)
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)

[edit] About OR and Verifiability tag

Both tags were included by user Farmanesh, who says the list of countries is original research. What OR is? Let's see what Wikipedia says:

Note the difference between unsourced material and original research:
Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source.
Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source.

Both cases are not happening here. The list of countries has 4 sources. Every country mentioned has a source backing its inclusion on the list. No country was included if it was not mentioned. What is frustrating here, is that the logic dictates one has to check if there are sources (there are...), then to check if those sources are reliable (they are, since they are published books), and finally, one has to read the references in order to see if they support the claims/information in the article (they do!).

However, user Fermanesh, did not follow that logic. Instead, he tagged the entire table as OR/V, without taking the time to assume good faith, or to actually READ them. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you noticed an admin did intervine and reverted your change to my version. I don't know how many admins should tell you until you accept as you claerly still insist in your old opinion. I wonder is there anyway you would consider you are wrong?
Anyhow I appricite you are adding more refrences, it is great. I wonder if you know something, you need to show your references for each part of article. For example if there is already a refrence for the list of countries in the refrence section you need to clearly identify it.
HAve a look here [6] as you see every main point is seperatly refrenced. This is how you can take the tags out, if you insist Mexico is NIC then you need to bring an exact/direct refrence saying that and link it exactly where you claim mexico is NIC.
Until you do that (for each and every country in the list) it is V/OR problem (as an admin said). To be fair I am happy to wait few days before deleting name of those countries without clear refrnece if you need time.Farmanesh 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Instead of tagging the whole section, why don't you put a {{fact}} tag next to the specific countries you are disputing? That will help editors find the sources you want to see. Kafziel Talk 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Kafziel, that's a great solution. However, the problem here is that he cannot know what country is mentioned and what country is not in the references, because he's not willing to go and read the book. Needless to say, every country listed is mentioned. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Farmashed, you won't delete anything, since there is no OR problem in the list. Each country in the list is identified as a NIC by at least one of the 4 authors. No country was included if it wasn't explicitly and directly mentioned.

There is no need to add a reference next to the name of each country, because the 4 books mention a list of NICs in the same line, paragraph or table. So, a link to the page where those countries are mentioned is included in the begining of the table. It would be redundant to add the exact same reference next to each country name. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute just one country there, all of them need specific refrence to why they are included as NIC.
Although I appricite the fact he is now adding sources and I wait to see how it goes. The page similar to this article topic with proper citation is Great power countries. Each country has its own refrences.
LIke Great power you need to source each country.Farmanesh 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Listen, if you want to "dispute" anything, you first need to read the books, and you haven't read them. After you read them, and if you don't see the name of any of those countries listed, then you can claim anything. You can't dispute a list just because you don't like it. You can't dispute the list if there are references. You can't dispute anything if you haven't read the books first. That doesn't have logic. I can go article by article disputing all the content just because "I haven't read it", or because I'm not willing to go to the library and read the book.
Each of the 4 books provided, mention every country listed in the table. AGAIN, there is no need to add the SAME REFERENCE next to the name of each country, because each book list them in the same line, paragraph or table. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 18:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
As for refrence, you need to give direct refrence why for example Mexico or Bahrain are NIC. Just a general book without specification is not enough. You should identify which one-which page says for example Bahrain is NIC.
PLease look at Great power and see how it should be done. Also see verifiablity policy as says: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."
I can't belivie how much of everybodies time you are taking on this simple issue.Farmanesh 18:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Farmanesh, I can independently verify that P.164 (as noted in the refs section) of "Globalization and the Transformation of Foreign Economic Policy" lists South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Brazil and Mexico as 1st generation NICs (high levels of industrialization began in the 1960s); Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Cyprus, and Jordan as 2nd generation NICs (began in the 1980s); and India, Egypt, Argentina, and Chile as 3rd generation NICs (began since the 1980s). So any of those countries are covered by that source (although, yes, they should each cite that same source on their own lines). Kafziel Talk 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Great, thank you Kafziel. I would happily add those sources to those countries. and as for other countries if anyone wants to keep them should kindely add specific new source.Farmanesh 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
ALL the countries are referenced. As Kaziel suggest, I'll then add the inline citation for each country (which is repetitive... but ok...). Kaziel could verify it, you know why? Because he took the time to READ the references, a thing you haven't done and you still dare to dispute the references. Now, it is time to remove the OR tag. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think if we add above source to above mentioned countries (each country seperate) and delete other ones (or like Kafziel did exactly mention the source), we can take out both tags. But Alex you could have be a bit more cool in this disscussion... This is finishing happily at the end :)Farmanesh 18:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not "taking out" any country. Every country is listed in the references. You can't say if a country is/is not in the references because, ooppss, you are not willing the read the sources. So if you haven't read the book, then you can't really say the countries are not there. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've formatted the "Globalization" reference as an example of how they should all be set up. When citing a book, use the {{cite book}} template inside the <ref> notations to make sure the proper format comes through. Use <ref name=(whatever name you want)> instead of <ref> to keep the references section from becoming too long; instead of multiple entries of the same source, you will have just one source with multiple links to it (listed as a,b,c, etc.). Then copy and paste the whole citation next to the proper countries in the chart. If you need more help, let me know. Kafziel Talk 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the help. If we do add specific reference to each country (as you did for some) we can take out the tag and feel better as now we have a nice referenced page.Farmanesh 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR/Verifiablity discussion

Katziel made a helpful comment on his talk page in response to Alex which would be helpful here:

"Alex, the only way to get the tags off is to properly cite the countries on the list. There's no point arguing about it either on my talk page or on the article talk page; if a cite is requested, a cite must be provided or the information can be removed. That's our policy. I'm doing my best to help - I've already formatted two of your book references. But until the entire list is done, the tags don't hurt anyone. Remember: there are no emergencies on Wikipedia! Everything will be sorted out in due time. Kafziel Talk 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)"

This simple rule is for all articles, in other ones also citation should be proper or it should be deleted, sorry Alex but this is the rule which once was hard for me to accept too.Farmanesh 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your "arguments" were proved wrong, the article was well referenced and now, it is even better referenced because of the inclusion of 2 additional sources. You challenged the sources just because you didn't like the fact that Iran was not included, well it is not a NIC, there's nothing we can do about it, I'm sorry. Thanks God this is over, you were wrong and three different persons told you that. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 22:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Alex seems you have no idea how to have a civil discussion, you called me many things during this whole discussion, taged my talk-page as vandal, called me lier and now accuse me of something I didn't even try to do and you just think I might have like to do! In civilized world we try to keep things professional and not attack personally.
I hope you learn that someday, seems this process didn't help. and now you announce a winner or loser here? Is this all about for you? What I did had nothing about proving you wrong or right! It was and still is asking anyone (not only you) to provide proper refrencing.
And BTW this is not finished, this article is in the first steps, we need to work much more on it toghther. If you really like to find a winner it is wikipedia and ultimatly everyone. For that I am happy and proud.
Now lets get back to work, your source number 4 and 5 does not have a page number and it is not verifiable. You need to add page number if you want to keep those countries there...Farmanesh 04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll just ignore you from now on. One can't take seriously a person that say is "interested in the subject", but then, is not willing to read a book about the subject. That doesn't make any sense. And no, it is not "my" source. I did not add it. It was the first reference somebody added when the article was written. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 13:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doubt on reference 4 (David Waugh. Geography, An Integrated Approach)

Book on the surface is unrelated to NICs: "It is estimated that the Earth was formed about 4 600 000 000 years ago ..." and countries which are mostly doubtful to be NIC (like Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain) are refrenced to this book. And still this refrnece does not have page number. There is verifiablity problem here. Lets work/discuss on it.Farmanesh 04:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no "verifiability problem". You were able to locate the book, right? Then it's verifiable, just open it, read it and verify; and please help us to indicate the exact page (if you read it...) The only problem is that you didn't seem to want to read it. I wonder why...
There's nothing to discuss, you can't dispute the content of a book you haven't even read. Can you tell a book is about a subject just because of its cover? You need to read it. Or tell me, have you read it?
If you want persons to take you seriosly, then follow the propper logical steps to challenge a source: verify the source exists (it exists, since you were able to "see the cover"), verify the content of the book. Oooppss... you haven't read it. So you can't say anything about it. I have read that book, and one of the chapters is about Human Geography, including economics and, of course, a description of what a NIC is and a list of countries currently considered NICs. And no, I did not add that source. That book was the first reference added when the article was written. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 13:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Alex, I think I give up on you. You easily get angry and start personal attack and name calling and worse you would not consider the smallest chance that you may be 1% wrong. I just paste what Admin:Kafziel wrote answering my above question and your defence to it on his talk page as an archive for others:
"You are well within your rights to place a {{verify source}} tag after the countries on the list that cite books without page numbers. Just place a note of explanation on the talk page and try to tread lightly; no need to stir up the situation again by placing big tags on the section. In the meantime, I will see if I can find different, web-based sources for the information. If we don't get page numbers or new sources after a week or so, it would be okay to remove the countries that are not verified. Kafziel Talk 12:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)"
"Nobody is saying the book doesn't exist. But if you can't provide a page number, then the source is not verified. That's exactly what that tag is for. We can not expect everyone to read an entire book to try to find the source. It's not that he doesn't "dare" to read the book - not everyone's library has a copy of every obscure college textbook, so it's not as easy as you claim. If it's so easy to look this up, you should be able to look it up and tell us what page it's on. Is there a reason you can't do that? If someone requests a page number, we must provide one or the information can be removed. Kafziel Talk 13:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)"
Also in result of User:AlexCovarrubias uncivil behaviour admin-User:Kafziel left following comment on User:AlexCovarrubias's talk page here:[7]. Admin:Kafziel writes to User:AlexCovarrubias:
"Please calm down. I've been very patient so far, but if you can't discuss the situation without being rude, I will block you for personal attacks. I don't want to do that, so please stop accusing Farmanesh of wrongdoing. Sarcastic remarks like this do not help. You're not going to win this by attacking him or questioning his motives. You only have two options: provide a page number or accept the fact that there will be dispute tags on the article until someone else provides a page number. There is no other option, and if you continue the personal attacks I will have no choice but to stop you. Kafziel Talk 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)"
I would try to minimize the one-on-one talk between me and Alex and make the case more genral for all wikipedian who may want to contribute. and as it is wikipedia policy and confirmed by admin:Kafziel (as Alex would not accept the policy on its own and you need an admin to tell him), I will remove unverifiable refrences (with countries based on them) after a while.
Anyone who cares to keep them, please add exact/verifiable source.Farmanesh 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you also gonna paste that he and I are now in good terms? Are you also gonna paste that he added the "have a beer" template (a friendly template)? Are you also gonna add that he actually helped me in re-ordering the references? No, right?. You are only gonna paste whatever you think "help" your point, and as a side note, doing that is also uncivil since it heats up an ended debate. The fact is that the list is well referenced, always has been and will be. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 19:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear, Karmakesh. You won't delete any country in the list because every country is well referenced (always have been), that is, no country is in the list without verification in a reliable, published source. Regarding your argument of "no page number, no valid source" (which I respectfully find ridiculous, and as a way to trick the system to advance your own bias), that is now non-valid, since I went to the library and added the chapter titles, chapter number and pages. Thank you. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 18:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am happy you sound more polite now although you still do your normal personal-attack thing accusing me of bias. Anyhow, I wanted to say regardless of all the resistance and problems I thank you for adding proper refrences and yes as far as the current references remain un-disputed no country is going to be deleted.Farmanesh 18:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't thank me. I did it for Wikipedia. As a side note, I hope you really get to read those books one day. It would have helped a lot if you read them in the first place, as logic points. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Baron's dictrionary

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)

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)
The inclusion of Argentina and Chile is also supported by the "Newly Industrialized Countries" reference. Kafziel Talk 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/w/Talk%7ENewly_industrialized_country_808e.html"