Talk:Developing country

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: "Bridging the Divide might be good for the bottom line", ADTmag.com, March 22, 2004. (details)

Contents 1 malaysia 2 possible article name change 3 LDC, LLDC..... 4 EU members? 5 How many people live in Developing countries? 6 Self-designation 7 Suggested changes 8 VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template? 9 NPOV dispute 10 role of developing countries 11 Definition of Developed Area 12 role of mncs 13 Undeveloped vs. underdeveloped 14 Warsaw Pact 15 Underdeveloped 16 Nature of Development 17 Removing the map 18 Merging "Third World" with "Developing country". 19 whose fault? 20 Sources of underdevelopment 21 Merging "third world", "developing countries", "least developed countries" etc. under the umbrella of "Majority World" 22 Merging 'Underdevelopment' into 'Developing country' 23 let me guess. 24 OR problem with "Typology and names of countries" section 25 It's "least" peeps! 26 query: 27 Guam 28 Original research 29 Redirects problem 30 Maps 31 Dare I suggest a merge?

[edit] malaysia

ist malaysia is also a developing country? or it already achieved the status of developed country???

[edit] possible article name change

The term Developing/developed country is misguided. The terms Economically less developed country or Less economically developed country (LMDC/LEDC) are more politically correct, and describe the situation more clearly. They are also terms modern geographers use, to avoid POV's as much as possible.

Shall I rename the page, and do a slight rewrite? Then maybe it will be clearer to point out which countries are to be named.

I am also proposing the same idea on developed country.

List concerns/comments here!

This definition should not be renamed or moved in my opinion (joyce898). I am writing to you (hello) from an underdeveloped country now. If anything, I vote for linkage with the "Third World" debate article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyce898 (talk • contribs) 18:12, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

PeregrineAY 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. While possibly misguided, "developing countries" does seem to be the convention. For example, Google search for "developing country" on UN website shows 30,800 matches (as of writing of this comment), and no matches for "economically less developed country" or "less economically developed country"; similarly, Google search of WTO website gives 23,600 matches for "developing country", and no matches for either of the proposed terms, and on the World Bank website, the results are similarly 56,600, 0, and 0 respectively. Besides, it's much easier to say. Ikh 09:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Impolitic: the current titles are the prevalent ones in use, being intuitive and conforming to the Wp common naming convention. The proposed titles are not at all used (online) and unnecessarily occlude the topic for a visitor. Similarly, the UN HDI categorises countries according to high, medium, and low human development. Instead, edit the article to better embrace a neutral point of view. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing would be occluded (obstructed), would it? The redirect would ensure they find the article. And to quote from Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

"This policy in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."

The title Less developed country (plus appropriate redirects) would satisfy this policy - the meaning is easily recognized, and less ambiguous the the current name - while also being more accurate than "developing country". See my comments below. --Singkong2005 05:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• • points well taken, I shall edit the articles soon, instead of renaming. Peregrine_^AY 10:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything needs to be changed, i just hate the term 'developing country' - it assumes that all countries are aiming to be like the developed countries. It assumes that economic development is the only important attribute of a country, or that rural, agricultural countries are somehow backward. Maybe if that's a common objection to the term it could be mentioned in the article? Joziboy 27 Feb 2006, 19:13 UTC

This article concentrates on single area and has no ambition to cover everything. That the term gets used in wrong contexts is not problem that could be solved here. Pavel Vozenilek 05:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean we should repeat a common error, if we can easily be more accurate. --Singkong2005 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong Conditional support for name change - at least, I'd support changing this one to Less developed country (currently redirects to this article). The common term Developing country is euphemistic and inaccurate as a general term. We must be concerned with accuracy, not just common usage.

The term Less developed country is not as common (2.5 million hits on Google, compared to 98 million), but it is in use, especially in academic writing, and writing focused on these countries. I have come across it a number of times in my study. It's more factual and actually more easily understandable than Developing country, making it more suitable as the article title. The explanation in the intro will ensure there is no confusion. --Singkong2005 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've realized that LDC also stands for Least Developed Country, a term used by the UN with a related but different meaning. So Less developed country mightn't be ideal. I still don't like the term "Developing country," but it needs to be a clear term which is already in use (though I think not necessarily as common as "Developing country" or Third world. Will give it some thought. --Singkong2005 07:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think 'developing country' is really a lie - some countries will develop others not, largely because the rich don't want them to. The term 'developing country' supports the myth that everything is going the right way to sort out poverty. "Poor countries" is often appropriate "less developed countries" is at least trueJohncmullen1960 16:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that "developing country" is the best choice. There is a clear difference between what economists call a developing country and an underdeveled country, less developed country or third country. Developing countries are those that showed in the last years sings of improvement not only from the economic point of view, but also regarding security and political stability and all the rest.

[edit] LDC, LLDC.....

the least developed country [1]

[edit] EU members?

I am pretty sure some of the eastern european nations are still developing. if i am correct, we cannot say all EU members are developed nations.

== Developing nation → Developing country== and equivalently Developed nation → Developed country The latter term is much more common (outweighs the former 10:1 in Google). Also "nation" potentially raises more political development issues than is usually intended; the term is economic. Rd232 15:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I would assume the article was probably written by an American, since in general we Americans have little understanding of the conceptual division between a nation and state (and even less an understanding of a nation-state I might add) and have confused the terms to the point of making them synonymous when they aren't. —ExplorerCDT 15:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Country gives a more precise meaning. Icundell 19:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support as long as developing nation and developed nation remain as redirects, as they are commonly used synonyms. --LostLeviathan 00:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Naive cynic 01:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strong support. "Nation" is quite incorrect usage here (and taken literally, "developing nation" is quite insulting, implying lack of cultural development). —Tkinias 22:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No it does not. To be pedantic it implies a lack of national institutions and nothing to do with culture. To take Germany as an example. It had cultural development long before it had national unity and national institutions. Indeed one could argue that for part of its existence as a nation that its cultural development went into reverse! The UK is a nation state but it consists of 3 and 1/4 countries. Just as the UK consists of more than one counrty (as did the USSR), there are countries like Korea (and before reunification Germany and Vietnam) which consists of more than one nation state. Normally when one says developing nation, one means the region inside a nation state not in the one of more (or less) countries which make up the nation state. Developing nation is usually used as a short hand for economically developing nation state. As IMF statistics are calculated by nation state and not by country, and development aid, loans etc are allocated by nation state and not by country, I am not sure why anyone would want to put the article under country. Philip Baird Shearer 15:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"The UK is a nation state but it consists of 3 and 1/4 countries." I would say precisely the reverse is the case - the UK is a state or country consisting of English, Welsh, Scots nations, plus NI. In general, country is synonymous with state, the latter being a political term. Nation is a cultural term. We use nation state for states that consist primarily of a single nation (or perhaps claim to or aspire to). Your IMF remark, BTW, is wrong - the IMF [2] talks about countries, not nations or nation states. Rd232 17:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more or less". The trouble is that the words country and nation do not have a precise meanings and vary depending on the context. England is a country and the major English national sport is football. The UK is a nation state consisting of 3 and 1/4 countries, England, Wales, Scotland and most of Ulster, which one of the four provences of Ireland (and ignoring for this example semi-detached Channel islands and the Isle of Man). One does not go to the nationside one goes to the countryside, so country has something to do with territory occupied by a people who can be identified as a nation. As for the IMF as they say On this site, the term "country" does not in all cases refer to a territorial entity that is a state as understood by international law after all it is the International Monetary Fund, it is not called the Intercountry Monetary Fund. It is the United Nations not the United Countries. Philip Baird Shearer 18:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look mate, by your logic, I could go on about the different meanings of "developing". Ultimately, what matters is the compound term we're describing here, and it is "developing country" by a country mile (pun intended). Rd232 21:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm moving this up the page for further discussion - apart from Philip Baird Shearer there seems to be broad support, so let's have some more votes and see where it goes. Rd232 21:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Google results can be misleading and I'm one who supports 'official' names rather than 'most commonly used' names. (And I'm sure that most Wikipedians disagree with me on this.) I support this because the IMF, UN, and WTO all use 'country' rather than 'nation'. And for those arguing over the meanings of 'country' and 'nation', my dictionary (The American Heritage Dictionary) gives this help:

Synonyms: 'Nation' primarily signifies a political body rather than a physical territory—the citizens united under one independent government, without close regard for their origins; secondarily it denotes institutional ties, a community of economic and cultural interests. 'Country', in strict usage, is a geographic term signifying the territory of one nation, but it is often used in the extended sense of 'nation'. —Mike 21:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Trying to ascertain whether proposal does have broad consensus. Looks like to me - so can we have it moved? Rd232 00:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It will be done as soon as an admin notices this section. Please don't move the discussion or comment elsewhere on this page. Is there some urgency with this? -- Netoholic @ 01:21, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

---

Terms such as "developed" and "developing" are so rooted and tainted by Eurocentric bias that the author doesn't even realize it. The criteria used to define levels of "development" clearly show a capitalist bias. (edit made by User:Musicus)

The terms are in widespread use or at least much more widespread than any others. Pavel Vozenilek 00:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How many people live in Developing countries?

This is the question that brought me here, but I don't see the answer. I assume something like 2/3 or 3/4 of the world's population live in developing countries. DirkvdM 11:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A (very) quick calculation: China 1.3bn, India 1bn, Africa 600m; that's a lower bound of about 3bn, not including Latin America or the rest of Asia. Alternatively, Europe, North America, Japan, SKorea amount to around 1bn, so that leaves around 5bn in developing countries. Better estimates would need more time and clearer definitions. Rd232 16:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

So that's roughly what I thought, but indeed it all depends on the definition. Is China a developing country? Well, it's developing pretty fast now, but ironically, that is not what is usually meant by 'developing country'. And it would be a rather condescending western upstart attitude to use such a name for a country that was developed way over our western heads when we were walking around in bearskins :) . Actually, I really meant 'poor countries' in the sense that the majority of the people will not have a private car and therefore use public transport, because I made an edit in the top of that article without being able to give exact numbers.

By the "most not having a private car" definition, China (and India) certainly qualifies. Rd232 21:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

So does Japan, and probably Singapore. It's not a worthwhile definition. --63.231.59.53 01:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

China and India are developing (or even "poor") countries alright, but using automobile ownership as a mean to distinguish the developing and the developed countries, I would say, is a poor argument. Automobile in many countries, outside the US, especially the ones where space is more limited, is considered good to have, not essential to have as in the US. Nor is public transportaion a symbol for the poor as people in the US may conceive. This largely is due to the difference from infrastructure development to population density. User: kc October 7, 2005

[edit] Self-designation

I think the following statement, under developing country (see sub-heading ‘Nature of development’), may be incorrect. (Note, the statement has already been cited from Wikipedia by a media source. See top of this page...)

The statement reads:

“The United Nations allows each nation to decide for itself whether it will be designated as "undeveloped" or "developing" (though many economists and other observers ignore the UN rule about self-designation).”

I assume the term 'undeveloped' in the above context would be similar in meaning to the more commonly used least developed country. In fact, the UN has very specific guidelines to determine whether countries should be considered Least Developed Countries (LDC) as opposed to developing countries. These criteria can be found at http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/ldc/ldc%20criteria.htm It also states that the General Assembly is responsible for the final decision on the list of LDCs.

I have read in the past that the WTO allows self-designation when it comes to whether countries are considered a developed country or developing country, so maybe this has led to confusion?

[edit] Suggested changes

This article is in need of substantial revision. Comparing the subtlety of the text to the Wikipedia entries of "international development" and "Third World" leaves much to be desired. 1. Phrases like "backwards infrastructure" do not convey the NPOV that Wikipedia strives to represent. Much of the beginning section should be rewritten to reflect the controversial nature of the term developing to describe certain countries. 2. In particular need of revision is the "Sources of (under)development" section. No sources are cited, and it seems to me to exclusively embrace a conservative worldview. For example, no mention is made of trade disparities, colonialism, or the support of dictatorial regimes by the North during the Cold War period. This section should either be expanded to explain the issues from various competing points of view (with references to appropriate paradigms and authors) or it should be deleted.--Ove 20:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

I agree. I think it should also mention whether becoming a developed nation is desirable or appropriate for every country/region/people. Some people may prefer to live simply. You have the extreme of bushmen, and the middle ground of Inuit, who have only embraced some of aspects of industrialized society, like snowmobiles and modern medicine. -- Kjkolb 12:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I also support the points made by Ove. I came here by redirect from "less developed country" which seems to me to be a more useful term, and now more generally accepted than "developing country" -- after all aren't all countries "developing", even those that claim to be "developed". Fundamentally, what we are talking about is "poverty", "inquality" (both within and between countries) -- and "social justice". Perhaps what is needed is a short article that concentrates on internationally accepted usage, such as that of the UN, World Bank, UNDP etc., and signposts to other articles on the major themes and debates of development theory. The short article would have to flag up alternative approaches to measuring "development", mention current concerns, such as the millenium development goals, but leave the detail to be expanded elsewhere. PS For anyone who is interested I would recommend reading Chapter 2 of UNDP's 2005 Human Development Report "Inequality and human development" which begins with a quote from Don Quijote “There are only two families in the world, as my grandmother used to say: the haves and the have-nots.” [3] The big inequalities that really matter are not just between countries but are also within countries and between urban and rural, between ethnic groups, between boys and girls, between regions, etc. --Kahuzi 13:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Further, I'd like to see a critism section on this page. The term "developing" is in and of itself ethnocentric, as it implies there is some sort of ladder that countries progress along. And, of course, Western nations are the best, at the very top. I don't feel comfortable adding a section, but perhaps someone else could? Lartrak 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template?

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)

[edit] NPOV dispute

This article is tagged with an NPOV dispute, but there seems to be no real discussion about why it is POV. The one reference there is doesn't seem to be in the article anymore. Does anyone object to the removal of the tag? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The user who tagged the article as biased has not cited his/her concerns over the article. I am hence removing the tag --Deepak|वार्ता 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] role of developing countries

[edit] Definition of Developed Area

A developed nation should be defined as one that has completed demographic transition - that is, a region that has successfully moved from high birth and death rates to low B/D rates without falling into the demographic trap. I do not believe that it should be defined as an industrialized or urbanized region. Kerala in India is an example of an economically poor region that has completed demographic transition

[edit] role of mncs

[edit] Undeveloped vs. underdeveloped

This article does not distinguish between the two. Underdevelopment, meanwhile, hints at but doesn't fully explain the usage. 70.109.237.162 02:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warsaw Pact

It's idiotic to class 'former Warsaw Pact' nations together, are you saying that east  Germany and  Czech Republic are at the same level of development, as countries like  Tajikistan and  Azerbaijan? +Hexagon1 (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Underdeveloped

I suggest moving the article to a more appropriate term, "Underdeveloped country". In fact, many of the countries listed as "developing" aren't experiencing economic growth at all, and their HDI sometimes is getting worse as well. Please, let's talk sense. It's not because an incorrect term is used somewhat widely that it should be used in an encyclopedia. We should aim for what's true, not for what's common. --Andrelvis 15:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nature of Development

I don't think post-modern editorializing like the following belongs in an encyclopedia article:

"Even though a lot of the world seems to aspire to development, the term itself is criticized by those who think it is too centered on Western countries. The term implies a direction and a movement that the countries must follow; it implies an inferiority of the developing countries."

There are some people who think this way, sure; they happen to mostly be in the English departments of universities in the "developed world". I doubt that most people who reason this way have ever been to a so-called developing country, and am confident based on my experience that few people in what I prefer to call poor countries or the Tiers Monde would object to industrialization.

If this is going to stay, someone (who is less angry than I am about this point of view) needs to summarize it better, identify who holds this opinion (post-modernists or somesuch bullshit) and include a critique of what is a decidedly minority view. Or I'm going to delete it. 203.199.50.16 11:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the map

I have removed the map to the right because I think it generalises the issue too much and is somewhat inaccurate. The thing that struck me most about it was its inclusion of East Germany as developing. Firstly, East Germany is not an independent political unit and hence should not appear separately on the map. If we accept that it should, then we are also accepting other subnational units such as Southern Italy or Extramadura or Cornwall, all of which are at about the same income level as East Germany. Secondly, the inclusion of the former Eastern Bloc are "developing" fails is far too generalised. Countries like Slovenia and the Czech Republic are high-income, developed, net donor economies. The Czech Republic also considers itself developed. The other countries of Eastern Europe are also mostly upper-middle income economies which are classified as developing regions by the UN. For this reason, I believe they should be removed from the map. Ronline ✉ 09:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This map is basically mixing transitional countries with developing ones.--Planemo 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging "Third World" with "Developing country".

• I oppose, because wether we like it or not, the term "Third World" refers basicly to the poorest nations in the world, no to all of the developing world. Doing this will confuse the users to falsely believe that all of the developing world is considered Third World. And what about the [Newly industrialized country|Newly Industrialized Countries]? that according to the definition, are countries with developing levels beyond those found among Third World nations. So I oppose. -- AlexCovarrubias 02:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Third World is an outdated term that should have its own article that explains its unique description. Developing countries is seen to be a more politically correct term, although it has shortcomings too. A neutral term that should be used more often is "Less economically developed country", LEDC. Peregrine_^AY 05:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• oppose 16:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• strongly oppose. "Developing" and "developed" are ideological terms, implying a Western norm. I prefer the neutral "Global south" (currently redirecting to Third World or "underdeveloped world" capturing active process by which the global south was under-developed. BobFromBrockley 14:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I oppose merging the two pages. I came here to look up the term "Majority world", and went on to read the "Developing world" page. I think the current split between terminology (this page) and concepts (primarily "Developing world") is useful. What they should be headed is a separate discussion -- but I think there are too many exceptions to make "South" a sensible part of the answer.

Oak 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: Third World Country and Developing Country are not synonyms. It just happens to be the case (because of historical/economic/social reasons, I'm not suggesting that it is just a coincidence) that countries that are one, tend to be the other.

As all the votes are against, should merger proposal tag be removed? BobFromBrockley 14:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I came here to oppose. Will zap the tag. Long overdue. :) --Smilo Don 00:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] whose fault?

This article should contain more reference to the widespread opinon that underdevelopment is caused by the domination of rich countries. (See the writings of international charities like Oxfam). This is not the only possible view, but it is a widespread view and should be represented here. Johncmullen1960 16:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources of underdevelopment

What does "real or used as justification" mean in this context? All of the items are said to come from "different theories", so it seems a kind of bias or weakening of those points. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.220.223.7 (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Merging "third world", "developing countries", "least developed countries" etc. under the umbrella of "Majority World"

• Using the term "Majority World" encompasses all the variants of the global community that are not Westernized, without pronouncing judgement on what is and is not "development".Hurtsmyears 02:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think "Majority World" is an awkward term. Wikipedia tries to use the term that is most commonly used, and that is developing/developed. To avoid judgement, the term Less economically developed country works well, but it is not in common use, so the article will have to remain named as "Developing country," but do add "Majority World" as a synonym into the main article page. Peregrine_^AY 10:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Can you provide references of the use of this term? Because Wikipedia cannot be used to create original terms or investigations. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• The term 'majority world' is presently being used by organisations such as Oxfam, Indy Media, World Food Policy, Lancashire Global Education Centre, Oxford Research Group, Aid Watch, New Internationalist, and is just begining to be used by the United Nations. So by no means would wikipedia be creating a new term here. Hurtsmyears 03:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• You will notice that Third World has its own article, because it is a term that actually refers to a different entity. We haven't merged Third World into this article, because they are actually different entities.

Also, until "majority world" spreads into widespread usage (the public as well as the NGOs), we should not change the article name. Wikipedia is not necessarily politically correct.

--Peregrine_^AY; 11:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging 'Underdevelopment' into 'Developing country'

What about merging the content of 'Underdevelopment' (which is almost entirely about underdeveloped countries) into this article? There could be a separate section about the differences in terminology and implications of the word 'underdeveloped' versus 'developing'. While I agree in opposing previous suggestions to merge with 'Third World', since that is a specific theoretical concept distinct from 'Developing country', I think that 'Developing country', 'LDC', and 'Underdeveloped country' are more or less synonymous (plus 'Underdeveloped country' already redirects here, so shouldn't 'Underdevelopment' also?) Countermereology 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should not be done. A redirect seems more appropiate. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] let me guess.

Russia isn't a developed country,isn't she?

[edit] OR problem with "Typology and names of countries" section

"Typology and names of countries" section does not have proper sourcing. Please add refreences or we need to remove current name of countries based on OR/Verifiability policy.Farmanesh 01:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't need to remove anything just because you don't like it, or you lack the ability or the willingness to simply click a reference, or to go to your local library and ask for the book. In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. You have been doing this in several articles you don't like. I have a clue why you're doing this, but I'd rather assume good faith. The list of countries are based in the respective articles: developed country, newly industrialized countries, etc. There is no such a thing as "OR". This article has been here for a long time, and surprisingly, the thousand of editors involved have never raised such a "controversy". Why? Because it is clear those countries are listed in their respective articles.AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you said: "assume good faith" and not to attack personally. Lets keep it professional and freindly. As I said before I am willing and able to look at refrnece anyone gives.

Now as OR/V policies clearly say you need to give refrence for a section you want to be included. If it is a book which page. You can not synthesize it to advance a position. If you give a list of countries you need to give a direct/clear refrence which has such list.

Please save everyones time and just give the refrence.Farmanesh 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not my duty or work to "save your time". And I did not created those lists. I only added the NIC list. And the countries included in each list are listed in their respective articles. So you need to go to each article and "claim" the list as OR. These lists are just a mirror of those articles.AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Farmanesh. I tried to improve the section mentioned, but I'm afraid it needs better references. I have scanned all my economics books and made a google search, and all the sources mentioning "Newly-Industrialized Countries" either refer to the original use of the term (To refer to the East Asian Tigers that industrialized in the 1970's), or are unencyclopedic sources not retaled to economics (ie: Time magazine, bussiness journals, etc). If you have a proper source for this section of the article, why not list it?--Lobizón 18:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All the sources are economics books and each of them presents a list of countries currently considered NICs. The "East Asian Tigers" where the first generation of NICs along with Mexico and Brazil, but the first 4 are now considered developed by several authors. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 08:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's "least" peeps!

I hope I've not come to the party too late, but surely following the UN's meaning of LDC as Least Developed Country/ies and not 'less', 'little' or even 'lachrymose', is the most sensible alternative since this is what is used in international affairs. For a list see [4]. --198.54.202.22 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] query:

Can emerging countries be called developing countries or viceversa? Ed Rung (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guam

Guam cannot be considered a developing country because it is not an independent country. It is a territory of the U.S.A. It's certainly located in a geographical region of the world that's developing, but itself is not included. I question whether the Northern Marianas should be included as well due to its slightly less dependence on the U.S.A. (it's a commonwealth unlike Guam which is a territory of the U.S.)Jlujan69 (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Wikipedia has a policy excluding original research. That means we can't simply choose what we consider a developing country. Instead, we need to rely on reliable published sources. If desired, a table could be created to compare various sources, but for now one is enough. In this edit, Sbw01f says he has changed the list to use IMF data. I haven't checked it, but that is a reliable source. Neither Image:Industrialized countries 2007.PNG.png nor Image:Developing countries 2007.jpg cites a reliable source, so I have removed it. It would be useful to create a map based on IMF data (if one doesn't exist already). Arbitrary changes to the list or images are not acceptable, and will be reverted. Superm401 - Talk 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know where on the IMF site the developing country list is? Superm401 - Talk 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects problem

This article contains a link to Less economically developed country, which Redirects to Third World. Third World contains a link to Less economically developed countries, which Redirects to here. LEDC and LEDCs link here. I don't know what should link where. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Who all thinks a merge is the answer? The Third World article seems to more about the term than the actual countries and such. I realize there are nuances in the terms 'third world', 'developing', 'least developed' and 'newly industrialized', but the pages as they are now do nothing to clear up what they are, and the redirects go to all sorts of random places. Loggie (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

edit: read the previous horrible deaths of merger options, so I've elaborated on what I think should be done in a new section.Loggie (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

The maps that are currently on this page I find more confusing than helpful. There is no single map that says "these are the developing countries", and of the maps that are there, I don't see what good half of them do.

• The first one shows incomes, but countries aren't labeled 'developing' based only on income. Thus I could see this map being useful in a discussion of the differences between low income and developing, but I don't see the merit in having it as the first one.
• With the second map, I am confused. In the article it states that 'least developed' countries shouldn't be classified as 'developing', however the key for this map has two groups of 'developing': non-least developed and least developed. Still, this appears to me to be the best map, as it has the developed countries labeled, even if it is in two colors, and in conflict with the text of the article.
• With the third I think some comment to how 'developed' the market is relates to whether the country is 'developing' or not is in order. The only comparison I am able to draw is that the advanced economies have developed markets. Given that there is a difference between the terms 'third world' 'developing' 'least developed' and 'newly industrialized', I don't see how this map can help me figure out which are which, and which countries are on top isn't what this article is trying to show.
• Fourth: why is this here at all? The article says at the top that newly industrialized countries are different, and there is no text near the map to help me make sense of it.

To add to the confusion, there is a different map on the Third World page that doesn't match any of the maps on this page. Loggie (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dare I suggest a merge?

After reading the responses to merging propositions before, I'd like to suggest a different answer than a simple merge. The problem I see is that currently there are 5 articles about these countries: Underdevelopment, Developing country, Third World, Newly industrialized country, and Least Developed Countries, and many similar names that are redirects (as well as entirely different terms), and the redirects go to many different places. The second problem is people linking to one of these articles, when in reality they wanted a different one- while the 'Third World' page gives a great description of the origin of the term, it doesn't talk about the countries themselves, which is what (I would assume) many of the links are expecting it to do.

What I don't see is one article that talks about the differences between these terms, in a clear manner. I think there should be an article to do this, and another to discuss the countries themselves, as I assume there is more to talk about than what label they are being given. So I think what we should end up with is two articles- one on the terms, and one on the countries. If there is too much about the various terms that have been prevalent at various times, I suppose more than one article would work, but I think we need to be careful to make sure people know that they have arrived at an article about the term, rather than the countries, and vice versa. So that is my merger proposal. Loggie (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)