User talk:Eliko/Archive 1

shalom you did allready few waves in the hebrew wiki,so it is time to write who are you. all the best. nachum.


 * Hello Nachum
 * But you never told me who you are. You are invited to say more about yourself, and then we will talk. Eliko 19:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

New Ash green

 * Regarding the article New Ash Green - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name?''

Sorry, I haven't any idea, though I could make a couple of guesses. "Green" in English place names usually means there's an open area of parkland nearby. Reading the article, though, it seems to have been near an earlier site called Ash, which might well relate to the type of tree. So, at a guess, I'd say it was probably a new village built colse to the site of an old one, close to parkland containing ash trees. You might try asking at Reference desk/Humanities - someone there might have a better idea. Grutness...wha?  23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Eliko 11:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with the above message. It doesn't necessarily have to have any deep meaning, especially as it is a relatively modern settlement.  Morwen - Talk 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Me neither no idea. Redlentil 19:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I do not know the origins of the New Ash Green name, but I can ask my mother who was one of the original residents of NAG. Celica tom


 * Thanx. Eliko 12:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ash (near Sandwich)
As above. No special knowledge. :) - Kittybrewster 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Same from here, sorry Saga City 06:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Me neither - sorry. Deb 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ash, Surrey
According to Sally Jenkinson's book:
 * "In the year 976 Ash was spelled 'Aesc', which meant 'at the ash tree' — an appropriate name, since ash trees still spring up like weeds every year in the middle of the village."

And later:
 * "The fields which lie between the Manor House and the road to its south used to be 'Ash Green', the road having taken its present course only since 1856. The two ponds on the green are still there."

Hope that helps, Charivari 03:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Eliko 11:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ash (near Taunton)
Hi, Although I tidied the article for Ash (near Taunton) I have no evidence about the source of the name. You are obviously doing some work on this from your talk page & I'm sure the presence of an Ash tree is the most obvious speculation, but beyond that I have no idea.&mdash; Rod talk 09:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Eliko 11:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ash, Surrey?
Hi. You ask:


 * Regarding the article Ash, Surrey - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name Ash?

Sorry no. My only edit was to disambiguate a link on the page. -- Chris j wood 17:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Eliko
 * תגיד לי, החבר'ה פה מנטרים את דף השינויים האחרונים? מצאתי פרט שגוי מאוד בערך קצרצר שנכתב על ידי אנונימי. מחקתי את הערך וציינתי בדף השיחה. ממי מבקשים פה למחוק ערך? אני אמור אמור לבחור מפעיל באופן אקראי? יש כאן מפעילים שמדברים עברית? אני יכול לסמוך עליך שתטפל במחיקתו של הערך
 * The article is Yaakov Nimrodi. Thanks. Gridge 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Hello, Gridge
1. The official language here is English. Please observe our local customs.

2. I'm sure you were absolutely wrong when you decided to delete the article. If you've found any mistake with Nimrodi's birth year - you can simply fix it into the correct date. If you think the article includes any wrong info - you may indicate that on the discussion page, or try to fix it, but why should you delete also other correct pieces of info?

3. No option of requiring the deletion of any article - unless one has got a good explanation for that. If you think the whole article should be completely omitted - try to explain that on the discussion page. Unfortunately, your explanation on the discussion page is definitely insufficient, since you haven't explained why other correct pieces of information about Nimrodi should be deleted.

4. I hope I've made myself clear. If you have any more questions - you're invited to ask me again. Anyway, Anywhere you decide to exhibit your following question - try to use the local language.

5. Yours truly, Eliko.

Eliko 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Loud and clear. Gridge 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Origin of name
Please see the article http://www.bbc.co.uk//kent/places/names/index.shtml#a which confirms what is being said above. English place names often have such origins. Peter Peter Shearan 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Eliko 11:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita
Hi, did you leave me the message on commons? It looks like the map has been updated now by User:AlexCovarrubias --Astrokey 44 10:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I would be happy to listen to your opinion about the problem of leaving the map as it is now in the article List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. I think this map can't stay in the article, because the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita refers to 2006 figures, and the map (though updated) refers to 2005 figures. The other alternative is to edit another map which will represent 2006 figures. What do you think?
 * Eliko 11:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A new map would be ideal, but its fine by me if you want to remove the current one until it is created. (I had thought it was updated before but it looks like that was just a change in the colour scheme) --Astrokey 44 10:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lord of the Manor
Hi Eliko. Please check the first paragraph of the above article. Thanks. Gridge 10:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
 * My problem is with the "", but I guess it's just fine. Gridge 10:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Hi Gridge. I'm almost sure the wikipedian who used the word Blogg in the article - is swedish, because the english word is Blog, not Blogg. Anyway, I changed it, and now it's . clearer, right? for example, you can say: The lord of the manor of Brighton, etc. By the way, why did you wait for me? couldn't you do it yourself? if you're a wikipedian - so you're permitted to edit the articles, just as I am... Eliko 11:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, now it's clear. Thank you.
 * And no, I couldn't. Why? quite simple - I don't know english... I'm serious. Gridge 14:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Strange... maybe you mean you don't know english sufficiantly, but you must speak some english, right? if you hadn't spoken english at all - then you couldn't have talked to me right now, correct? Eliko 14:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct :-) some english. Just some. (And the word is sufficiently...). Gridge 15:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
 * rite; anyway, by using dictionary - u shud no english well-enuf and sufficiantly, opss - sufficiently of course... Eliko 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe... Gridge 16:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

CIA and Macau
CIA defines Macau as developing territories is based on the data provided on 2003 and it isn't updated yet according to the data provided by 2006, DSEC. For the data CIA using to describe for Macau is 2005, that is the year before last year. I am not sure if Macau is one of a member of IMF but surely it is one of the founder member of WTO. 74.14.122.64 22:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you "personally"(pay attention to this word: personally)think that HDI is rough and mislead, can you academically(pay attention to the word: academically) point out which part is misleading? do you know the figure for each country is derived from? which formula and which math/stat. model you found out having bias? I am looking forwards to your reply with "mathmatical" explantion. Thanks! 74.14.122.64 00:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * The person who gave the rough definition of the developed countries according the HDI - is me, but I indicated in the article that this definition is "rough" and misleading; Take Slovenia as an example: before April 2007, Slovenia was classified as developing although its HDI had been over 0.9.
 * I mentioned the fact of Macau's not being an IMF member, because the official classification of the developed countries is given by the IMF, and the IMF classifies its members only. That's why Andorra, Lichtenstein, Monaco, and the Vatican City, have never been classified as developed by the IMF. However, they are included in the article as developed - since the CIA recognizes them as developed. Note that the CIA has not yet recognized Macau as developed. The same has happened with regard to Slovenia: It had not been recognized by the IMF as developed - until April 2007, and therefore the Wikipedia did not classify it as developed - until April 2007.
 * The precise definition of developed country does not depend on its HDI. The term developed country is used to categorize countries with developed economies in which the tertiary and quaternary sectors of industry dominate.
 * If Macau, then why not Greenland, Gibraltar, Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands, (etc.)?
 * Despite all of that, I didn't omit Macau from the article. I just added the message, waitng for a citation of any international organisation which recognizes Macau as developed.
 * Eliko 01:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For Greenland, what kind of currency they are using now? how about Cayman Islands, Vrigin Islands?  are they special admin. regions that they have independent monetary systems?  to put on the list as developed country/region is not relying on the sources of CIA, World Bank (how can you say they have the right of final say?) but also common sense and LOGIC.  If all countries listed here have HDI over 0.90 and GDP per capita (PPP) over US$20,000, then why not add that entity over there?  of course you can add Cayman Islands or Vrigin Islands, etc as long as you find out the reliable information of their HDIs and also GDP per capita (PPP).  For Singapore, local authority estimated itself GDP per capita (PPP) that is even lower than CIA, should I adopt the figure from CIA?  you deliberately avoided to give me an answer by math./stat. way that they are misleading, rather, you were talking about something else.  I asked you again, what composition that are basically composed of in order to derive HDI?   74.12.181.58 01:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * you made a mistake, it is World Bank, not UN.74.12.181.58 01:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * you made a mistake again, Macau is an IMF member. Refer to the CIA that you always claimed (i.e. International organization participation) 74.12.181.58 01:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you haven't understood me: I've never claimed that Macau's HDI has bias. Probably it is based on the formulas given here. I just claimed that defining "developed country" according to HDI - is misleading, because the term "developed" has never been defined by HDI, and also because it is agreed there could be developing countries with HDI over 0.9. e.g. Slovenia before April 2007.
 * Remember that the article deals with the term "developed" - just the way it is recognized in the world, and the world does not recognize my suggestion to define "developed" according to the HDI. The very fact that all countries listed in the article have HDI over 0.90 and GDP per capita (PPP) over US$20,000 - doesn't matter: If it did matter, then we could also say that all countries listed in the article have HDI over 0.8 and GDP per capita (PPP) over US$10,000, so let's add Mexico (and many other countries) to the list of "developed" countries...
 * Regarding Greenland et cetera: if you try to define a "developed" country according to its being a Special Administrative Region and to its having a separate currency and to its HDI and GDP per capita etc. - then it can be OK, but you need a source citation for that. However, as long as you don't supply any source for your suggestion - then mentioning Macau should have been accompanied by mentioning Greenland and Gibraltar etc.
 * Thank you for correcting my mistake about the UN and the IMF.
 * Eliko 02:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Start from the very beginning, what is Human Development Index? pay attention to the word of "development".  If I include countries with HDI 0.8, are they defined themselves as NIC or emerging market like Mexico or even China?  knowledge is derived from deduction or induction.  Pay attention to Macau's figure, its HDI is higher than Cyprus or Portugal; it GDP per capita is higher than Spain.  To put on the list is not like what you say because CIA say so, or because World Bank say so.  Someitmes you have to use your brain! 74.12.181.58 02:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Human Development" - is a separate term, being different from "economic development" - on which the term "developed country" is based. Human development Index - measures: life expectancy, education, and income, while the term "developed country" refers to the "economic" development, and is used to categorize countries with developed economies in which the tertiary and quaternary sectors of industry dominate.
 * Eliko 05:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong, if so, why HDI includes GDP per capita, income? if you say tertiary sector, how do you explain GDP - composition by sector in Macau in which service occupied 92%, refer to CIA that you always claimed.  74.12.181.58 03:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never said "wrong" about what you have written, so please don't say "wrong" about what I have written. If you don't agree with me - say: "there is some digagreement beteween us", or something like that. thank you in advance.


 * HDI measures the total human developnent, and the human development depends on three factors: 1. the ECONOMIC factor (measured by the GDP per capita, i.e. the income). 2. the HEALTH factor (measured by the life expectancy). 3. the EDUCATIONAL factor (measured by illiteracy rate, school enrollment, etc.). This is the Human development. However, the economic development does not consider the HEALTH factor, nor the EDUCATIONAL factor. The only factor considered - is the rate of both tertiary and quaternary sectors of industry. If Macau's economy is mainly based on the tretiary sector and almost not on the quaternary sector, then an important factor is missing for defining Macau as developed.


 * Eliko 05:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * From above que. I asked you, I was not asking what formula provided on HDI, but I asked you why these formulas are biased. You didn't answer me anything.  I didn't tel you economic development consider health factor or educational factor.  Who told you the "only" factor is both tertiary and quaternary factor of industry? who told you if the qua. factor is missed that Macau would not be considered developed? 74.12.181.58 05:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have nowhere written that the formulas are biased. I've just written that the HDI formulas reflect the human development, which measures some additional factors other than the economic one, whereas the term "developed country" refers to the economic status, so the term "developed country" can't be based on the HDI.
 * Regarding your question about why to define "developed" according to the tertiary and quaternary factor of industry: I think you should ask the person who wrote the first section of the article.
 * Regarding your question about why Macau should not be considered developed if it misses the quaternary sector: There are many developing countries whose economy is based on services only (e.g. Antigua and Barbuda etc.). However, the main problem is not with the quaternary sector, but with the fact that you must give a citation when you decide to base your definition (of Macau as developed) on the arbitrary figures of 0.9 and 20,000$.
 * Eliko 06:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "developed country" is not based on brain, nor on Intuition, nor on deduction. The only relevant question is what the accepted commom classification is, and the accepted common classification - can be supplied by accepted international organisations only.
 * Eliko 05:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * well! don't you think HDI conducted by international organization? and also I'd like to figure out if CIA is an international organization or American public organization! 74.12.181.58 03:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Really, HDI (Human Development Index) is conducted by an int'l organisation; However, no int'l organisation defines "developed economy" according to the human development!


 * Really, CIA is not an int'l organisation, and therefore it is less important than the world bank and the IMF. However, The CIA is an accepted organisation (though not an int'l one), whose estimations are largely used and trusted throughout the world. Of course, if you prefer to truse int'l organisations only - it's ok, but unfortunately, no int'l organisation classifies Macau as developed.


 * Eliko 05:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * who told you CIA is largely trusted throughout the world? I think this one may need citation, what do you think?74.12.181.58 05:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Citations are needed for claims indicated in the articles only.
 * You don't have to accept the CIA. However, if you claim in the article that Macau is included amomg the "developed countries" - you should give a citation.
 * Eliko 06:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The number 0.9 is absolutely arbitrary. if you decide to take that number for adding Macau to the list of developed countries, then someone else may use the number 0.8 for adding the Czech Republic to the same list, thus omitting it from the list of emerging countries (or leaving it as a developed emerging country, just as South Korea is a developed emerging country).


 * Eliko 03:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * oh really? OK! maybe you are right, let's say 0.9 is absolutely arbitrary.  If we put countries with HDI 0.8, which countries having GDP per capita higher than US$20,000 or other from that table?  are these countries also metioned by CIA, World Bank or IMF that defined they are developed countries? by the way, if World Bank or CIA say Somalia is developed country, should we put on that table?74.12.181.58 03:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The number 20,000$ is Arbitrary too. Why not 10,000$?


 * There are many countries with HDI under 0.9 but with GDP per capita over 20,000$: e.g. Qatar, United Arab Amirates, Bahrain, Czech Republic, Malta, the Bahamas, Brunei, Equatorial Guinea.


 * Really, No int'l organisation considers any of the above countries as developed; However, it is also clear that No int'l organisation considers Macau as developed! What I meant is that you must decide whether you trust the int'l organisations, or you trust arbitrary numbers: If you trust the int'l organisations - then you should pay attention to the fact that none of them considers Macau as developed; However, if you don't trust the int'l organisations - then why do you decide to take the arbitrary numbers 0.9, 20,000$, and not decide to take the arbitrary numbers 0.8, 10,000$?


 * If the IMF had classified Somalia as developed - then we should have followed that classification, because the accepted commom meaning of the term "developed country" is due to the int'l organisation of the IMF, not due to the HDI - which measures the total human development.


 * Eliko 05:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * who told you I don't trust int. organization? who told you if int organization didn't consider certain countries in where info. not available is not developed countries or regions? who told you I decided the arb. no is 0.9 and US$20,000 should be considered developed(in fact: I tablised it with figures provided)?  who let you only trust int organization without looking figures carefully and considered them as developed countries?
 * I didn't say you don't trust int'l organisations; I've just said that you should decide whether to trust int'l organisations. If you trust int'l organisations - then it's ok, but then - you'll have to explain why the int'l organisation of the IMF considered Slovenia as a developing country - until April 2007, although it had long before - since 2003 - had an HDI over 0.9. You also must decide whether the sources upon which you lean - are int'l organisations or arbitrary numbers. If your sources are int'l organisations - then you should pay attention to the fact that none of them considers Macau as developed; However, if your sources are not the int'l organisations - then what are your sources? are they the numbers 0.9 and 20,000$? If the answer is positive, then why do you decide to lean upon the arbitrary numbers 0.9, 20,000$ (thus adding Macau to the IMF's list), and not decide to lean upon the arbitrary numbers 0.8, 10,000$ (thus adding Czech Republic as well)?
 * Eliko 06:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I never heard about the term that you invented by yourself as "developed emerging country". Do you have any web site that I can check it? 74.12.181.58 03:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When I wrote "developed emerging country" - I didn't mean there is such a term. I just meant that there are some countries (e.g. South Korea) which are both developed and emerging.


 * Eliko 05:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * so, that is what it is.
 * Right, and this is what I meant.
 * Eliko 06:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Me...
Hi Eliko. Tell me, please: is it "This user know english on X level" or "This user knows english on X level" ? Gridge 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC).


 * knows
 * Eliko 10:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Gridge 13:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
 * You're welcome.
 * Eliko 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Barbados
Hello Eliko, you're a nice person and with people like you is nice to dialogue. I've restored Barbados to the Developed Country article, of course with some minor editions so we get fine. Kardrak 01:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanx.
 * Eliko 12:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wealthiest Cities In The Middle East
Here's the content of the article (I have taken the liberty of fixing the broken format):

Mike Rosoft 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you
 * Eliko 12:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia/Mauritius
what you chatting, saudi's gdp per capita is 13,800, wikipedia is right! not ur dumb economic website!!!!!!! saudi is richer than Mauritius!!!! change it back how it was please! it's got riyadh which gdp is $80 billion and jeddah which is $60 billion!!!!! please change! Unites


 * Hello Unites
 * 1. The list in the right side (of the article) - is the CIA list.
 * 2. The CIA list puts Saudi Arabia with 13,600 PPP GDP per capita, and Mauritus with 13,700 PPP GDP per capita.
 * 3. If you think Saudi Arabia's PPP GDP per capita is 13,800 - you must give a source link (as I've given a link for CIA list). Once you find out a source link for your new figure - you'll be able to construct a third table (besides the IMF list and CIA list). No one will then delete your third table.
 * Eliko 12:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Developed country
The article is subject to a revert war; I should probably protect it for about a day until the users reach an agreement on what to do with it. For the record, the article's title is "developed country", not "advanced country", so the list should reflect that. - Mike Rosoft 09:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * According to your correct comment, I have just adapted the article to the linkage between the terms "developed" / "advanced".
 * Eliko 09:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

delete vandalism Eliko 12:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a request for full protection in order to take a break. I will put Macau back on the list once the protection tag has been taken off a bit later. 74.12.182.133 23:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that few minutes after Leungli made his last revert - Coloane made his first request for protection, and few minutes after you (74.12.182.133) made your last revert - Coloane made his last request for full-protection, and now you say that this was you (74.12.182.133) who made the request for full protection (few minutes after you made your last revert, so you did it - not to "take a break" - but to prevent me from editing the article), so now I know that you (74.12.182.133) are Coloane (who made all of the requests for protection).


 * Anyway, The article is now going under an Arbitration Committee for solving the dispute between the editors, as I indicated on the discussion page.


 * Of course, if you suggest a compromise - I'll suggest a compromise too. if you plan to fight - I'm ready to fight. It's up to you. My policy is...mutuallity, reciprocation.


 * Anyway, I really can't understand your position: so far you've absolutely ignored all of my recent comments on the discussion page; you've vandalized my talk page for 3 times today; you've suspected I hide behind sock puppet accounts; you exhibited your suspicion about me - as a fact - to other people; you asked to block me - although I've never asked anybody to block you (but to only semi-protect my talk page from vandalism made by the anonymous user 74.12.182.133, and to advise me how to cope with Leungli's/Coloane's continuous deletion of my three footnotes about Slovenia, Macau, and Cyprus). I've never asked anybody to block, nor to protect, I've never ignored your comments on the discussion page - on the contrary: I related to them deeply thoroughly and comprehensively. So what's the matter? I suggest that you read well my recent comments on the discussion page, and try to answer them deeply thoroughly and comprehensively - just as I did with your comments. If your answers convince - then I'll get convinced, since I've got no bad feeling against you. If my recent comments (on the discussion page) convince - then you should get convinced, since you should have no bad feeling against me. If none of us can convince the other - then the debate between us will probably have by then been decided already by a third party, since the article is now under an Arbitration Committee.


 * Eliko 01:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * well, I don't care! I will put Macau back on the list after the page goes unprotected, that's it! period! 74.12.182.133 02:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The page will go unprotected - only after "disputes have been resolved". i.e. after both sides reach an agreement. I'll agree to reach an agreement - only if you will do so as well.
 * Eliko 07:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
I am starting to mediate a case with the Mediation Cabal which you are involved in. Please see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25 Developed country. Thanks! Your mediator, Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please follow discussion at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25 Developed country if you still wish to be involved in this case. Please let us know if you do not wish to be involved. Your mediator, Greeves (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do want to be involved. Eliko 20:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Developed country
I'll fix the error in the IMF list tonight. As for the OR tag - the "comphrensive list" is OR. Wikipedia editors cannot put toghther a comphrensive list. All we can do is list the countries certain organizations list a "high income" or advanced. It is simply not up to us to decide whether a country is developed or not - especially since there isn't a concerete definition. Is Macao developed? We can't answer that question with a yes or no. What we can do is identify it as country that has been classified as high income by the World Bank. Whether or not that makes Macao a developed country is up to the reader to decide. The list is OR becuase it is an attempt to decide which country is and isn't developed - something we simply can't decide on WP. I hope that answers your question. Regards,  Signature brendel  20:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Which "comprehensive list"? I've never talked about any "comprehensive list" but about a list under my suggested heading: countries/territories classified as "advanced" by CIA and IMF. Note that the list is not an "OR" since my suggested heading doesn't include the word "comprehensive"; Instead, the heading declares its specific sources (CIA and IMF), and doesn't serve to promote any position (since the word "comprehensive" doesn't appear in that heading).


 * 2. The word "comprehensive" should be deleted from another heading which you havn't marked as "OR".


 * 3. I've never said Macao is not developed. On the contrary, I'm the person who added footnote no. 2 which describes the dispute over whether Macao should be considered developed or developing.


 * Eliko 21:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The CIA & IMF list was a comprehesive list and titled as such originaly. It replaced the heading with "CIA & IMF," but did not change the list itself. I will replace it w/ two seperate lists - one from the IMF and one from the CIA. The CIA and IMF are two difference source which arn't 100% identical. Thus, two seperate lists is the best non-OR way to present the info (Just like I created two lists for WB and IMF). Once all three lists are in place, reflecting the three sources accurately the OR tags will go. This should resolve all outstanding concerns and considerably raise the article's quality. Regards,  Signature brendel  22:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to adapt the previous section to your changes. That sction, titled: "Comprehensive list of advanced countries/territories", explains the connection between the CIA list and IMF list: CIA list is intended to adhere to the IMF list, but adds few non-IMF members which technically couldn't be included in any IMF list (neither the "developing country list" nor the "developed country list").
 * Here is a citation from the CIA website:
 * advanced economies: a term used by the International Monetary FUND (IMF) for the top group in its hierarchy of advanced economies, countries in transition, and developing countries; it includes the following 28 advanced economies: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, Netherlands, NZ, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, UK, US; note - this group would presumably also cover the following seven smaller countries of Andorra, Bermuda, Faroe Islands, Holy See, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and San Marino...


 * Eliko 22:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * True there is a connection between the CIA and IMF lists - and I will add an explanation (I'll probably add a quote from the CIA itself to add some creibility to the article). But the two lists differ by six countries. The CIA has created its own unique list. As for high income country - I do not advocate another seperate article. It's just a small entry and is easily incorporated into the article as is - besides the terms developed/rich/high income/first world are often used in such an ambigous manner that creating an article for each would just result in uneccessary "article clutter" - that is half a dozen articles basically covering the same thing ;-). The CIA and IMF lists are now seperate (becuase they differ from one another) and I fixed the mistake in the IMF list. Happy editing,  Signature brendel  22:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. IMF list includes 31 countries, not 28 (as you've mistakenly indicated twice).
 * 2. You've mistakenly put South Korea in a wrong position - both in the IMF list and in the WB list. You can simply copy the correct lists from First World which I've just now fixed.
 * 3. You've forgotten to add Switzerland to the CIA list.
 * 4. I think you should omit the sentence which indicates that CIA considers the "developed country list" to be more "comprehensive" than the "advanced country list", because the latter includes 4 countries not included in the previous one: Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan.


 * Eliko 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK - sorry for the miscount and thanks for the copyedit. As for the sentence the CIA list is longer and the "more comprehesive" remark is directly from the CIA - which apperantely thinks its list is more comphrehensive. I am just quoting the CIA on its own list. Regards,  Signature brendel  06:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * see below:

1. I can't understand why you ignored my above comment no. 3 regarding Switzerland in the CIA list.

2. Regarding my above comment no. 4, look: The sentence quoted from the CIA report - is not precise, since the longer list of the CIA is not more comprehensive, because it doesn't include 4 countries included in the IMF list. In my opinion, Wikipedia shouldn't quote any sentence having any wrong claim which both:
 * can easily be refuted by the reader, e.g. (in our case) - when comparing both lists to each other;
 * and
 * is not instructive, and supplies no information the reader hadn't known before.

3. I can't understand your recent edit in the section titled: "Human Development Index". Mexico has nothing to do with that section you've recently changed, since that section deals with countries the HDI of which is over 0.9, while Mexico's HDI is under 0.9. So what's the matter?

4. Due to your new changes during the last 24 hours - I highly recommend that you accordingly change the section titled: "Human Development Index" - as follows:

-

Human Development Index
The UN HDI is a statistical measure that gauges a country's level of human development. While there is a strong correlation between having a high HDI score and a prosperous economy, the UN points out that the HDI accounts for more than income or productivity. Unlike GDP per capita or per capita income, the HDI takes into account how income is turned "into education and health opportunities and therefore into higher levels of human development." A few examples are Italy and the United States. Despite a relatively large difference in GDP per capita, both countries rank roughly equal in term of overall human development. Since 1980, Norway (2001-present), Japan (1991 & 1993), Canada (1985, 1992, 1994-2000) and Switzerland, (1980) have had the highest HDI score. Countries with a score of over 0.800 are considered to have a "high" standard of human development. The top 30 countries have scores ranging from 0.885 in the Czech Republic to 0.965 in Norway. All countries included in the UN study on the IMF list had a high HDI. On the CIA list of "developed countries" Turkey (0.75) and South Africa (0.658) did not have a high HDI score. The World Bank list of high income countries includes several countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Estonia, that did not have a high HDI score in the 2003 UN study. Several small countries, such as Andorra, Liechtenstein and Macau were on one or more of the three lists but were not reviewed by the United Nations. Thus, these countries have not received an official HDI score.

All countries listed by IMF or CIA as "advanced" (as of 2007) - possess an HDI over 0.9 (as of 2004), and all countries possessing an HDI of 0.9 and over (as of 2004) - are listed by IMF or CIA as "advanced" (as of 2007), so a country classified by IMF or CIA as "advanced" (as of 2007) - may (unofficially) be temporarily-characterized as a country the HDI of which is over 0.9 (as of 2004).

4. Have a nice day.

Eliko 07:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok-I'll re-visist your comment on Switzerland as for your other concerns: Thanks for your help,  Signature brendel  18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I doesn't matter whether or not we on Wikipedia think the CIA list isn't more comprehensive - the CIA think so. That's what matters. (Also the list is 4 countries longer)
 * It does give the reader some idea on why the CIA list differs from the IMF list - it clarifies that both lists arn't the same but yet identifies a relationship between the two.
 * Mexico has a "high" HDI - the text was giving the apperance as though every high HDI country is a high income country - not true
 * The main reason for my edits to that section is the rampant OR. The section made the statement that a country w/ a 0.9 HDI is an advanced economy. That statement conclusion was made a Wiki editor - not a reputable source - and is, therefore, OR. Unless a reputable source can be found stating all countries w/ 0.9+ HDI to be "developed" countries, we cannot make this suggestion.
 * Furthermore there was an arguement included in a reference; that is simply unacceptable. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to include their arguements in article; thus, I souldn't find a lengthy arguemental description inside a reference! If the UN doesn't Macau, for example, Macau will need to mention seprate with another source. This argument: In 2004...Macau...had reached the level of developed countries... However, Macau is not recognized by any international organisation as a developed/advanced territory is OR. Editor are not resolve their conflicts and make their point in the reference syntax of an article. I am admin w/ more than 14k edits and have never seen an argument carried out in reference syntax - I quite frankly couldn't beleive my eyes! I will re-write the HDI sectio so there will no sepculation as do what a 0.9+ HDI means. I will simply state what the HDI is and what countries are classified as high. I may also mention the lowest HDI score of any developed country (CIA list), advanced economy (IMF list) and high income country (WB list). That way, almost all the article will have been ridden of OR.

Response

 * 1. Regarding the sentence quoted from the CIA:


 * You've written: "It does give the reader some idea on why the CIA list differs from the IMF list - it clarifies that both lists arn't the same"
 * The reader already knows the lists differ, even if the CIA doesn't say that. Which new (correct) information does the quotation supply the reader, such information which the reader hadn't known before?


 * You've written: "It...yet identifies a relationship between the two".
 * That relation, i.e "CIA list being more comprehensive than IMF list", is wrong, since CIA list, which is really longer, can't be more comprehensive when it doesn't include 4 countries included in IMF list.


 * You've written: "but it doesn't matter whether or not we on Wikipedia think the CIA list isn't more comprehensive - the CIA think so. That's what matters. (Also the list is 4 countries longer)"
 * In my opinion, what you've claimed - would be true - if CIA's claim were either true or supplying new information the reader hadn't known before; However, In my opinion, Wikipedia shouldn't quote any sentence having any wrong claim which - both:
 * can easily be refuted by the reader, e.g. (in our case) - when comparing both lists to each other;
 * and
 * is not instructive, and supplies no information the reader hadn't known before. Can't the reader realize himself the lists are not the same?


 * 2. Regarding the section titled "Human Development Index"


 * You've written: "the text was giving the apperance as though every high HDI country is a high income country - not true".
 * Let me quote the precise relevant sentence in the original section: "All countries possessing an HDI of 0.9 and over (as of 2004) - are listed by IMF or CIA as advanced (as of 2007)".
 * Does this sentence include any wrong information?
 * Does this sentence give the appearance as though every high HDI country is a high income country?
 * Does any other sentence give such a misleading apearence? Which sentence?


 * You've written: "The main reason for my edits to that section is the rampant OR".
 * Really, you are right when you say this is an OR; However, the problem was caused by a little mistake (not made on purpose) - which can easily be corrected - as I will show below.
 * Anyway, I can't understand why you consider it to be "rampant" - while the original sentence you've omitted - clearly warns that it deals with a "rough" definition, and with an "unofficial temporary definition", which "may mislead"! So many warnings can't make the sentence "rampant"...


 * You've written: "The section made the statement that a country w/ a 0.9 HDI is an advanced economy. That statement conclusion was made by a Wiki editor - not a by reputable source - and is, therefore, OR. Unless a reputable source can be found stating all countries w/ 0.9+ HDI to be "developed" countries, we cannot make this suggestion...there will no sepculation as do what a 0.9+ HDI means.".
 * You are right, the original sentence regarding the 0.9+ HDI - is an OR, but only because of a little mistake (not made on purpose) which can easily be corrected; Here is my suggested corrected version:
 * "so a country classified by IMF or CIA as advanced (as of 2007) - may temporarily be roughly-thought of as a country the HDI of which is over 0.9 (as of 2004). However, this unofficial temporary definition may mislead: it was not valid before 2004 and may no longer be valid in the future".


 * You've written: Wikipedia editors are not supposed to include their arguements in article; thus, I shouldn't find a lengthy arguemental description inside a reference! If the UN doesn't calculate Macau, for example, Macau will need to mention separate with another source...Editor are not resolve their conflicts and make their point in the reference syntax of an article. I am admin w/ more than 14k edits and have never seen an argument carried out in reference syntax".
 * I absolutely agree with you that no reference should include arguments, nor should the editors resolve their conflicts and make their points in the reference. However, I can't understand where you've found all of that - in the footnote you've omitted!


 * You've written: ''"there was an arguement included in a reference; that is simply unacceptable...This argument: In 2004...Macau...had reached the level of developed countries... However, Macau is not recognized by any international organisation as a developed/advanced territory - is OR...I quite frankly couldn't beleive my eyes!
 * I, too, can't believe my eyes! the section you've quoted - which assumes that it is not up to us to decide whether Macau is developed or not - includes no original research and no arguement, but supplies balanced objective information about two respected recognized sources: the national (respected) chinese report - which classifies Macau as "developed", and the (respected) UN report - which classifies Macau as "developing"; thus the reader is given full objective information regarding how the sources (international as well as national) classify Macau! Let me quote the original relevant section you've omitted:
 * "In January 2007, the People's Daily reported (from China Modernization Report 2007): 'In 2004...Macau...had reached the level of developed countries'. However, Macau is not recognized by any international organisation as a developed/advanced territory, while the UNCTAD organisaion (of the UN), as well as the CIA, classify Macao as a 'developing' territory."
 * Note that the above section supplies three objective facts:
 * The fact that the (national respected) chinese report classifies Macau as developed.
 * The fact that the (international respected) reports (e.g. the UN report) classify Macau as developing.
 * The fact that no international report classifies Macau as developed.
 * All of these three facts constitute (together) objective real information. Have you found any wrong information in that? or any misleading information in that? This section hasn't been intended to resolve any conflict! The section simply provides all of the objective information from all of the respected sources, and the reader will decide!
 * By the way: I myself have never determined whether Macau should be considered "developed" or "developing", nor is the above section intended to determine that!


 * You've written: "I will re-write the HDI section...I will simply state what the HDI is and what countries are classified as high. I may also mention the lowest HDI score of any developed country (CIA list)...That way, almost all the article will have been ridden of OR".
 * I welcome every new information added to the article; However, I again highly recommend that you change the section titled: "Human Development Index" - according to a new updated version (ridden of OR), after I've fixed all of the mistakes as indicated above, including 9 little spelling mistakes in your version. The new updated version includes now all of the objective information supplied by both of us (and ridden of OR), so you can copy it as it is. Of course, if you find anything wrong in it - you can simply fix it, but you shouldn't ignore it, just as I haven't ignored your version, but have incorporated it in the new updated version.

Eliko 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I couldn't read everything you said above, though I read 95% of it. Your proposal looks very good. There are just a few concerns left:
 * Turkey and South Africa have an HDI below 0.9 and are mentioned as developed countries - The CIA list differs from the IMF list in that it doesn't idenitfy "advanced" but "developed countries." Besides, the 0.9 cut-off is a WP invention - 0.8 is the cut-off for high. Now focusing on the 0.9 would be fine if indeed all countries on all three lists had a 0.9+ HDI - but that isn't the case. So why focus on the 0.9 figure? We could say "most countries on the three lists have a high HDI" - that would be more non-OR IMHO. (note that not all countries on the lists have been evaluated, i.e. Liechtenstein)
 * The Macau arguement seems like a classic case of two WP editors trying to make a country look a certain way. Macau -like Lichtenstein or Andorra- is NOT mentioned in the UN HDI report. If the PRC has classified it as high, we can mention that (though we do need to state that it was the PRC and not the UN who made the call)... And what is this "balanced perspective" doing in the ref mark-up? Statements belong in the text not the references (that is actually my main problem with your current proposal.)
 * This sentence seems awfully OR: "However, this unofficial temporary definition (for what is considered "advanced" by IMF or CIA) may mislead: it was not valid before 2004 and may no longer be valid in the future." What "unofficial temporary definition?" Who devised this definition you speak of? Who says it "may no longer be valid in the future?" Where do these conclusions come from?
 * The CIA includes 34 instead of 31 countries - two of them are quite large (Turkey and South Africa). Seeing as the CIA list includes millions more people, how is it not more comprehensive? Please understand, I am not married to this quote and will remove it as soon as I gain a better undertstanding of why I should do so.
 * Saudi Arabia is defined as a developing high income country by the UN but not the World Bank. According to the World Bank there are "high income countries." Perhpas a fourth list of "high income developed economies according to the UN" is needed.
 * Otherwise your revised proposal which includes the text I added looks fine. We are very close to finding consensus. But please downsize the refs to standard APA style (Author. (Date of publication). Titile, Institution. Publisher: Location. Accessdate from URL). A 50+ word reference including a "quasi-arguement" about Macau's status isn't acceptable. Once you downsized these two "mega-refs," justified the continued inclusion of the 0.9 HDI treshold, and cleared up the OR sentence I pointed out, we'll have consensus and a high quality section.
 * Thanks for your input - looking forward to finding consensus.  Signature brendel  00:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I am not ignoring anything you are saying. You are a great editor to work with but I am editing Wikipedia in my SPARE time and simply scan your posts (since they are very long) - instead of reading every single word. Best Regards,  Signature brendel  00:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: For the time being I have put your revised proposal in the article, but please address my five concerns. Thank you,  Signature brendel  03:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

New Response

 * You've written: "Turkey and South Africa have an HDI below 0.9 and are mentioned as developed countries - The CIA list differs from the IMF list in that it doesn't idenitfy "advanced" but "developed countries."
 * The CIA supplies two different lists: "advanced countries" and "developed countries". The original section which had discussed the IMF and the CIA - had dealt with the countries classified as "advanced" by IMF or CIA. Neither Turkey nor South Africa is classified as "advanced".
 * You're welcome to insert into the article - also the other CIA list dealing with "developed" countries, but it shouldn't influence the original section which discusses the countries classified as "advanced" by IMF or CIA.


 * You've written: "Besides, the 0.9 cut-off is a WP invention...This sentence seems awfully OR...What 'unofficial temporary definition'? If you are refering to the 0.9 HDI threshold (which was set by a WP editor) that would be OR."
 * I can't understand why you say it is an "invention" or an "OR", while this is a fact that any given country was classified in 2007 (by IMF or CIA) as advanced - if and only if that country had in 2004 an HDI over 0.9.


 * You've written: "0.8 is the cut-off for high."
 * You're right.


 * You've written: "Now focusing on the 0.9 would be fine if indeed all countries on all three lists had a 0.9+ HDI - but that isn't the case. So why focus on the 0.9 figure?"
 * The reason is very simple: the section indicating the number 0.9 - deals only with "advanced" countries (as classified by the IMF or CIA). Is there anything problematic to say something about "advanced" countries? Nothing problematic. So the section determines a fact about "advanced countries": Any given country was classified in 2007 (by IMF or CIA) as advanced - if and only if that country had in 2004 an HDI over 0.9. This is an objective fact - even though this fact doesn't necessarily reflect a definition created on purpose, i.e. it doesn't mean 0.9 is the intended definition of "advanced", but it does mean 0.9 (as of 2004) is the number which objectively characterizes the "advanced" countries (as classified by IMF or CIA) as of 2007. Isn't it a fact?


 * You've written: "The Macau arguement seems like a classic case of two WP editors trying to make a country look a certain way...A...reference including a "quasi-arguement" about Macau's status isn't acceptable".
 * There was a dispute between some editors: Some of them wanted to only mention the chinese report which classifies Macau as "developed" - and to ignore the UN report which classifies Macau as "developing", while other editors wanted to indicate all of the sources, and to let the readers decide.
 * The footnote dealing with Macau is not intended to be a reference, but to be a footnote (under "Notes" section) which indicates objectively all of the relevant sources - without resolving the dispute between the sources.
 * If you think the footnote about Macau doesn't seem to be objective enough, or seems to include "quazi-arguments", you're welcome to fix its version. As to me - I don't see Macau's footnote try to resolve any dispute or to include "quazi-arguments". However, again, you're welcome to fix anywhere you wish. Just don't ignore the footnote (which is not a reference).


 * You've written: "Macau - like Lichtenstein or Andorra - is NOT mentioned in the UN HDI report. If the PRC has classified it as high, we can mention that (though we do need to state that it was the PRC and not the UN who made the call)..."
 * Of course. However, all the relevant facts about Macau were mentioned correctly. Can you find in the original footnote about Macau any sentence which is untrue or misleading?


 * You've written: "And what is this "balanced perspective" doing in the ref mark-up? Statements belong in the text not the references (that is actually my main problem with your current proposal)...A 50+ word reference...isn't acceptable"
 * This is not a reference. This is a footnote (under "notes" section) mentioning all sources which are intended to determine Macau's economical status. Where do you suggest these sources should be mentioned? in the article itself? If you think you can insert that information into the article itself - you're welcome. However, I think this information should be inserted into a footnote under "Notes" section. Shouldn't it?


 * You've written: "But please downsize the refs to standard APA style (Author. (Date of publication). Title, Institution. Publisher: Location. Accessdate from URL)"''.
 * Every source was accompanied by a link. Once we arrive at a concensus I will add the missing details in that footnote, which is not intended to be a reference but a footnote under "Notes" section.


 * You've written: "who says it 'may no longer be valid in the future?' Where do these conclusions come from?"
 * I could understand your claim - if instead of the word "may" - the sentence you've omitted said "will". However: the sentence doesn't say the 0.9 characterization will no longer be valid; It does say the 0.9 characterization may no longer be valid. Why "may"? Because there are no sources which determine that the 0.9 characterization will be valid in the future!
 * Tell me, If I said: "This person may get killed in the future" (or: "may never get killed") - would it be an OR? I don't say "will get killed" - but: "may get killed"...
 * However, if you think you can improve the expression - you're welcome!


 * You've written: "The CIA includes 34 instead of 31 countries - two of them are quite large (Turkey and South Africa). Seeing as the CIA list includes millions more people, how is it not more comprehensive? Please understand, I am not married to this quote and will remove it as soon as I gain a better undertstanding of why I should do so".
 * A is "more comprehensive" than B - if and only if everything included in B is included in A, but not vice versa. Therefore, CIA list can't be "more comprehensive" than IMF list.


 * You've written: "Your proposal looks very good...your revised proposal which includes the text I added looks fine. We are very close to finding consensus...Thanks for your input - looking forward to finding consensus...we'll have consensus and a high quality section".
 * I hope so.


 * By the way: I can't understand why you ignored the UN classification (p. x, xii) of the countries into four categories:
 * 1. Developed countries.
 * 2. High-income Developing countries.
 * 3. Middle-income Developing countries.
 * 4. Low-income Developing countries.


 * I also can't understand how the matter of Saudi Arabia (you've mentioned in the article) relates to the article which deals with developed countries, not with "developing high income countries" (as Saudi Arabia is classified by the UN report p. xii). Do you know of any source (i.e. not OR) which classifies Saudi Arabia as a "developed high income country"? Note that this is not the case with the "advanced countries": every country classified as "advanced" by the IMF is classified as "developed" by UN report (p. x) or by the CIA.

Eliko 03:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerns:
 * Why only deal with advanced economies? That focus ought to be changed. The article is called "developed country;" thus, the perhaps most relevant list is the developed country list from the CIA. The advanced economy list is just one of three - making the 0.9 treshold abitrary. We can't just focus on the advanced economies list when there is also a developed country list and no source stating that "advanced economy" is the definition of a "developed country."
 * Aviod footnotes as much as possible. They show up alongside all other references! (unless you create a "notes" section in addition to the references section - which just looks terrible in a WP article) Just mention the particular circumstances pertaining to Macau's development status in the text (I'll do the hononrs, so we don't have rediclously long footnotes cluttering up the reference section - which is where all "notes" currently end up).
 * I removed "so a country classified by IMF or CIA as "advanced" (as of 2007) - may temporarily be roughly-thought of as a country the HDI of which is over 0.9 (as of 2004)" with "All advanced economies on the IMF list had a 0.9 HDI score or higher as of 2007." - who says is "may temporarily be roughly-thought" as such? If all advanced economies have a 0.9 HDI than let's say so w/o implying that a 0.9 HDI is a criteria for being an adavanced economy or "developed country." The sentence: "All countries listed by IMF or[5] CIA as "advanced" (as of 2007) - possess an HDI over 0.9 (as of 2004), and all countries[6] possessing an HDI of 0.9 and over (as of 2004) - are listed by IMF or CIA as "advanced" (as of 2007)" is sufficient - the reader may make of this whatever he or she will.
 * I now understand your presepective on the CIA list comprehensiveness issue - I still think it is more comprehensive becuase it includes more people but true, it doesn't include everyone from the IMF list - making it technically no more comprehensive -so I'll remove the quote.
 * Please explain where the "non-offical temporary definition" comes from? Was it a WP editor or is there a source? If this "definition" was the result of a WP editor doing original research it needs to go ASAP.
 * The statement "may no longer be valid in the future" is simply too banal. To me it sounded as though there was real concern over the HDI's future - in which case you would have needed a reference. We don't need to mention something so obvious - by the same token we could add "this model may be discontinued in the future" to every car article ;-) (Though actually all cars will eventually be discontinued in favor of some new model...) - The statemet was removed.
 * As for Saudi Arabia, I will add another list for "high income developed countries" in addition to the current high income list from the World Bank. I propose we keep both lists as they come from two different sources.
 * Again, we're coming close to cosensus - let's sort these few issues out. Best Regards,  Signature brendel  04:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I won't be on Wiki tomrrow as I'll be busy in real life. I will be back on Tuesday though - I'm sure we'll be able to fine-tune this section then.  Signature brendel  05:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Newer Response

 * You've written: "Why only deal with advanced economies? That focus ought to be changed. The article is called 'developed country'. thus, the perhaps most relevant list is the developed country list from the CIA.The advanced economy list is just one of three...We can't just focus on the advanced economies list when there is also a developed country list and no source stating that "advanced economy" is the definition of a "developed country."
 * Nobody has intended to claim that "advanced economy" is the definition of a "developed country", just as nobody has intended to claim that "Russia" - which is the only sub-topic dealt with in the chapter "Euroasia" - is the definition of "Euroasia".
 * Is there any problem with the chapter which focuses just on "CIA developed country list"? Is there any problem with the section which focuses on Russia only (within the chapter "Euroasia")? No problem, since any of these sections deals with a sub-topic which is not intended to exhaust the whole topic - but just to exhaust the sub-topic, so what's the matter?
 * The section you're talking about, which deals with "advanced countries" only, is located in a chapter called "Human Developmet Index". This chapter consists of two sections: the first section (you've recently added) is the main section, which deals with all three lists, while the second section focuses on a sub-topic (of the advanced countries) - which is not intended to exhaust the whole topic of the article - but just to exhaust the sub-topic of that section, so what's the matter?


 * You've written: "making the 0.9 threshold abitrary".
 * Is the number 30 top countries you've indicated - arbitrary? It is not arbitrary, since it is a rounded number indicating an objective fact about the top 30 countries.
 * 0.9 can't be arbitrary, since it is a rounded number (in the scale between 0 and 1) indicating an objective fact about the countries of which the current HDI (as of 2004) is 0.9 and over.


 * You've written: "I removed: "so a country classified by IMF or CIA as advanced (as of 2007) - may temporarily be roughly-thought of as a country the HDI of which is over 0.9 (as of 2004)" ..."
 * I've updated the new version of the section. The updated version of the suggested sentence - is not: "...may temporary be roughly thought of..." - but "may (unofficially) be temporarily-characterized".
 * Let's listen to your reasoning for that removal:


 * You've written: "who says it:  "may temporarily be roughly-thought"  as such? If all advanced economies have a 0.9 HDI than let's say so w/o implying that a 0.9 HDI is a criteria for being an adavanced economy or developed country."
 * "temporary" doesn't mean it will certainly be unvalid in the future. "temporary" just means it will not necessarily be valid in the future. Nobody claims the temporaty will never become constant...
 * I can't understand: Do you deny the very fact that 0.9 (as of 2004) is a characterization (unnecessarily constant charaterization) of countries classified by IMF or CIA as advanced (as of 2007)?
 * The number 0.9 (as of 2004) really characterizes (not uniquely but really characterizes) those countries (as of 2007), and this is a fact.
 * This characterization of the number 0.9 was not valid before 2004 (and nobody can assure you in advance it will be valid in future). Conclusion: This characterization is unnecessarily constant. i.e. it is temporary. What's the problem now?


 * You've written: "The sentence:  "All countries...and all countries..."  is sufficient - the reader may make of this whatever he or she will".
 * Also the three lists plus the HDI list - sufficiently describes the connection between the HDI and the developed countries; However, those four lists are too clumsy, so that they are insufficient in encyclopedically exhausting the point of that connection, therefore we need the whole section titled: "Human Development Index".
 * The sentence "All countries...and all countries..." (you've quoted) - sufficiently describes the connection between the HDI and the advanced countries. However, that sentence - indicating two different facts - is too clumsy, so that it is insufficient in encyclopedically exhausting the point of that connection, therefore we need the last sentence (you've removed) which encyclopedically exhuasts the point (concluded from two different facts) - by saying that the number 0.9 (as of 2004) characterizes those countries classified as advanced by IMF or CIA. What's the problem now?


 * You've written: "Please explain where the:  "non-offical temporary definition"  comes from? Was it a WP editor or is there a source? If this 'definition' was the result of a WP editor doing 'original research' it needs to go ASAP".
 * The term "temporary definition" should be better repleced by the clearer term: "temporary characterization" (i.e. unnecessarily-constant characterization). I've updated the new version of the section according to that better term.
 * The very existence of that "temporary characterization" (i.e. unnecessarily-constant characterization) - is a fact. Does anyone deny it's a fact? When every reader agrees it is a fact - then it can't be an original research.
 * By the way: when A is characterized by B, i.e every A is B and every B is A, then A is "defined" by B. This is the very definition of the term: definition...


 * You've written: "The statement:  "may no longer be valid in the future"  is simply too banal. To me it sounded as though there was real concern over the HDI's future - in which case you would have needed a reference. We don't need to mention something so obvious - by the same token we could add "this model may be discontinued in the future" to every car article ;-) (Though actually all cars will eventually be discontinued in favor of some new model...) - The statemet was removed".
 * I've updated the new version of the section according to your suggestion.


 * You've written: "I removed:... "All advanced economies on the IMF list had a 0.9 HDI score or higher as of 2007." ..."
 * I agree.


 * You've written: "Aviod footnotes as much as possible. They show up alongside all other references! (unless you create a "notes" section in addition to the references section - which just looks terrible in a WP article) Just mention the particular circumstances pertaining to Macau's development status in the text (I'll do the hononrs, so we don't have rediclously long footnotes cluttering up the reference section - which is where all "notes" currently end up)."
 * I don't reject the idea of putting the whole context - included in the footnote about Macau - in the text itself, e.g. in the chapter "Euroasia". Just don't forget to delete the first sentence of that footnote.


 * You've written: "I now understand your presepective on the CIA list comprehensiveness issue - I still think it is more comprehensive becuase it includes more people but true, it doesn't include everyone from the IMF list - making it technically no more comprehensive - so I'll remove the quote...Again, we're coming close to cosensus - let's sort these few issues out".
 * I agree.


 * You've written: "As for Saudi Arabia, I will add another list for 'high income developed countries' in addition to the current high income list from the World Bank. I propose we keep both lists as they come from two different sources".
 * I don't think there is any problem in adding another list; However, your comment regarding Saudi Arabia - involves a problem: How does her issue relate to the article? Saudi Arabia is classified by the UN report (p. xii) as a "high income developing country", so why should we mention its medium HDI in an article dealing with developed countries? Do you know of any source classifying Saudi Arabia as a (high-income) "developed" country?


 * You've written: "Best Regards"
 * Goodbye.

Eliko 19:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at that I actually have sometime for WP today! Okay,
 * The 0.9 characterizes all advanced economies. True, but the first sentence does exhaust that point. It clearly states that all advanced economies have a 0.9+ HDI. I don't see how this sentence is not sufficient in making a very simple observation.
 * The wording "unofficial characterization" is uneeded. Again, the first sentence states that a 0.9+ HDI is a characteristic of all current advanced economies... there isn't anything left to say. The last sentence makes a suggestion to the reader, that he/she is to think of a 0.9+ HDI as a requirement (granted an unofficial one) of an advanced economy. It (the older version much more so than the newer one) suggests that a 0.9+ HDI is part of the definition the IMF and CIA employ when creating their lists. That suggestion is OR. Again... all we can say is that all advanced economies have an HDI of 0.9+ - you could say the samething twice and make the following statement:
 * All countries listed by IMF or[5] CIA as "advanced" (as of 2007) - possess an HDI over 0.9 (as of 2004), and all countries[6] possessing an HDI of 0.9 and over (as of 2004) - are listed by IMF or CIA as "advanced" (as of 2007). An HDI of 0.9 currently characterised all advanced economies.
 * I proposed we leave the list of all high income countries in as high income country/first world country and developed country are often used interchangeably. I have, however, changed my mind. I will, afterall, create yet another article (High income country) and add a note in the current article about the differences between the two classification, despite the terms being used interchangably.
 * The revised version of the revised version of the revised version is much better! I have tweaked it a little per my above concerns - it's on the article. Thanks for the suggestions and explanation.
 * Over and out,  Signature brendel  21:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Newest Response

 * The first sentence about 0.9 - consists of two different claims (being two objective facts):
 * All countries listed by IMF or CIA as "advanced" (as of 2007) - possess an HDI over 0.9 (as of 2004);
 * All countries possessing an HDI of 0.9 and over (as of 2004) - are listed by IMF or CIA as "advanced" (as of 2007).
 * These two factual claims are extremely different: the first factual claim - yet not the second factual claim - would have been true even if we had changed the number 0.9 by any lower number, e.g. 0.850 (or less), while the second factual claim - yet not the first factual claim - would have been true even if we had changed the number 0.9 by any higher number, e.g. 0.950 (or more).
 * Any number could be a characterisic of advanced countries - if and only if that number were true in both factual claims.
 * The first sentence, consisting of two different facts, is very clumsy; it really exhausts the matter, yet it doesn't encyclopedically exhaust the point. Just the last sentence, which consists of a sole summing-up claim about the characterization, seems to encyclopedically exhaust the summing-up point.


 * I can't find in the older version (which has already been updated by both of us) any hidden intention to "make a suggestion to the reader, that he/she is to think of a 0.9+ HDI as a requirement (granted an unofficial one) of an advanced economy", or "that a 0.9+ HDI is part of the definition the IMF and CIA employ when creating their lists".
 * reminder: when A is characterized by B, i.e every A is B and every B is A, then A is "defined" by B. This is the very definition of the term: definition...


 * By the way:
 * The new version of the "0.9 section" includes a little mistake: at the end it goes: "characterized by a HDI score...". I think "an" is better...
 * The new version of the chapter "high income economies" includes a little mistake: "Saudi Arabia and South Korea, for example, is...".


 * Goodbye.


 * Eliko 23:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, we're getting close.
 * I finally see your point about the two points the 0.9 HDI section is making in one sentence. Upon further review, I agree the sentence does seem too clumsy - I have changed the last sentence to give a better summary and broke the first sentence apart. The message should be conveyed in a clearer manner now, w/o using the term "definition."
 * The very first version made a suggestion to the reader IMHO (though what constitutes a suggest is subjective)
 * I am aware of the definition of the word "definition." Yet, would like to avoid using the word "definition" - it is too suggestive in this case IMHO. It suggests that an HDI of 0.9+ is used as one of the guidelines for being categorized as an "advanced economy." "Characterizes" is a less suggestive term IMHO - though I agree that "defines" would be the most pratical.
 * I'll fix the c/e mistakes.
 * I've revised the section a bit, take a look at it and let me know any suggestions/problems.
 * Best Regards,  Signature brendel  02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Concensus!!!

 * I've just taken a look at the revised article, and I don't reject it. Just fix a (hopefullly last) spelling mistake - I've just found in the IMF list section: "31 countries are classified as advaced economies."


 * Just one question: I wonder why the example of South Korea was replaced by Singapore. Both countries are classified as "advanced", and neither of them is classified as "developed". So what's the difference between them?


 * Just Best regards,


 * really just?


 * Eliko 07:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Great! Sorry for the spelling mistakes, I usually don't proof read my entries -I "kind-of" scan them instead- and rely on my fellow Wikipedians to notify me or fix them. Ronline replaced South Korea w/ Singapore. I haven't question his/her decision since both countries share the same status as far that particular statement is concerned. Happy editing!  Signature brendel  21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bye
 * Eliko 22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hello Eliko

Goodness me, I just can't believe how fast this year has gone!! do you know when the next HDI list is for this year?? Thanks :) ☆ Muzammil, مزمل ☆ (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In October 2009. Look at the bottom of this page.
 * By the way, why on this archive page and not on my main talk page?
 * Eliko (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)