Talk:Newly industrialized country

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maalikib. Peer reviewers: Sigarg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Rdedwards95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

India

I can't find India listed as a newly industrialized country in the sources. Was it added improperly? As far as I know, it is a developing country, not one that has already been industrialized. It seems odd to include a country with such a low per capita income with countries like Malaysia and South Africa that have per capita nominal incomes that are 5 times higher than India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.240.103 (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading books and doing research often helps, see [1], and [2].14.139.223.67 (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also agree with the Opener, I have went through all the reference and could not find any valid source to indicate India as a NIC. I was also just going through the latest global competitiveness report, which described India as a "factor" drive economy. The only place India seemed to score higher as compared to itself was on market size, even then it scored poorly due to the low per capita income, reduces the quantity of more industrialized goods and services to be bought. If you look at the other end of the spectrum, Australia has a similar GDP to that of India, but a far smaller population, but his not be confused with market size. Australia higher industrial output per capita, allows it purchase more higher end industrial goods and services, as compared to India which its market demands more basic goods and services.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-12.pdf

India Page (219 of 544)

Whereas all the other (NIC) countries are described as transitive or efficiency driven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

On the per capita issue, Malaysia is ahead of China also. It doesnt matter. India is in the list because of the sheer size of its industrial base. Come back when Australia reaches 10% of Indian output in cars, steel or cement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.3.235 (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Philippines

Please, before anybody makes a comment on whether the Philippines should be included in the list of NIC's or not bear this in mind. Study how to compose your articles properly. I'm a Filipino and from what I've read here (especially those who ridicule the Philippines), you people don't even know how to use English properly. Us Filipinos know what we are talking about and know how to properly compose it.

The Philippines is more than just overseas workers. We have a solid banking system which has so far withstood the current economic collapse of wealthier countries. Our manufacturing and services sectors are also rapidly expanding. The country's economic principles are solid and like it or not, the Philippines will be rightfully take its place in the world economic stage. Something it should have been able to achieve decades ago.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mitzkel"

Mitzkel, being a NICs is more about growth than linguistics. The Philippines grew half as fast as the developing world as a whole in the 1980s, 60% as fast in the 1990s and still only 83% as fast in the 2000s. When the Philippines grows significantly faster than other developing economies, it may be time to revisit this issue. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

BRIMC source

Goldman Sachs Paper No.134 Relevant Emerging Markets (in English) is an updated study about BRICs, so this source from December 2005 has a more reliable and recent economic perspectives for BRIC and other Newly Industrialized countries than the original BRIC study of 2003 Goldman Sachs Paper No.99 Dreaming with BRICs: The path to 2050 (in English).

Kardrak 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC) it is a battle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.220.15.146 (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Argentina, Chile

Both countries are not NICs, they are not even industrialized at all, their economy is based on primary products like mining or agriculture, there is not strong enough manufacture on this countries to be considered relevant as NICs. --Kardrak 01:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What?

The Argentine economy has a very well-developed industrial base. The country is an important exporter of machinery, footwear, textiles, and automoviles, among others. You obviously have no idea on what you are talking about. If it's not considered a NIC, it's because it has experienced industrialization during the 1930s-1950s, thus it's not "newly"-industrialized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.149.26 (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Both countries are not NICs, they are not even industrialized at all

Sorry, but this sentence shows quite a trace of nescience. Argentina and Chile may not have the big population of Brasil and Mexico, and might therefore not be seen by you in this group. But these 2 countries in many aspects stand quite in front of the bigger 2 continental brothers. For example, both Argentina and Chile have a considerably higher HDI then ANY country mentioned on the NIC table in the article. The article also says, that a relevant indicator for an NIC is it's export oriented market. Chile for example, has the highest export per capita value in whole Latinamerica by far and its companies do strongly penetrate neighbouring countries like Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia among others.

Argentina has recently received the order from Australia to build them nuclear plants !. As NIC is not a definition for size of a country, but industrial and technical status of them, Argentina and Chile must be definitely included, if you consider Mexico and Brazil as NIC's. Not to mention many other far less industrialized countries also considered NIC's like Philippines or Pakistan. This is almost ridiculous --194.203.215.254 13:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

These don't qualify because they do not meet the fallowing criteria

NICs usually share some other common features, including:

Increased social freedoms and civil rights. A switch from agricultural to industrial economies, especially in the manufacturing sector. An increasingly open-market economy, allowing free trade with other nations in the world. Large national corporations operating in several continents. Strong capital investment from foreign countries. Political leadership in their area of influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.124.150 (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Social freedoms and civil rights... What? What does it have to do with industry? Even if you were right, remember that Argentina was one of the first countries to approve same-sex marriage. Your whole list does not have anything to do with INDUSTRY. The article lists Andorra as industrialized, and not Argentina. This is a joke. Argentina exports nuclear reactors and is the only country in the Americas to have built communication satellites -the other being the USA. Argentina also exports electronics to more than 60 countries. You should read more about Argentina. You are assuming that every country south of the USA is the same.

I would not say that Argentina and Chile have CONSIDERABLY higher HDI than the rest of the list. Argentina barely has an HDI 4% higher than Mexico. (.869 vs .829). Even so, that is not the only factor in deciding which countries are included in the NIC list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.216.74.2 (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well agriculture certainly does not account for a large share of these two countries economies and they have even experienced a large shift in their productive structures in later decades, from industry to services. in that respect, perhaps we shouldn't fit them in the NIC definition, because they are in a more advanced status of development. They have graduated from being newly industrialised. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a class of "quasi-developed" nations, so although unfair, it seems only logical that we fit both Argentina, Chile and Uruguai in the definition of Newly Industrialised Nations. As to the referred lack of openess, all 3 countries (and, yes, I took the liberty of including Uruguai) are more opened to international trade (as measured by [X+M]/Y, total international trade over output) than the mighty bric Brazil. Also, in that respect, Chile is one of the nations with most Free Trade Agreements implemented with trade partners around the world.As to strong international inflows in the form of capital investment and FDI, probably Argentina and Uruguai don't fit well here. But Chile does and it does big time, as it is probably the most politicaly stable contry in Latin America, with high quality instituions, some of them unrivaled in the Americas as a whole. For that reason, the country accounts for a substantial ratio FDI/GDP.But yes, it is true, they lack the other criteria you mentioned: none has internationally important large national corporations and all of them (as well as any other non-potuguese speaking nation of South America) have their regional influences overshadowed by the huge influence of Brazil both in the region and internationally.Anyway, the term NIC is not widely used anymore. It was a trend in international economics during the 80's, somewhat replacing the term "asian tigers" as the most fashionable. It was itself replaced by the definition of BRIC, and other trends will come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.82.61.231 (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan??

Is Pakistan in the category of newly industrialized countries?? --Mm11 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Pakistan has been growing very simmilarly to the way India has been growing. Soon, Pakistan, as well as Iran, may be included.

With all due respect, Pakistan is an impoverished and underdeveloped country in South Asia and has been plagued by poverty, corruption, and other evil for many decades right from 1947. India is the hegemon of South Asia. By the year 2020, both China and India will be classified as Advanced Economies by the U.S. and Japan. Svr014 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)NICSupporter

With all due respect, the South Asian "hegemon" suffers from the same problems as Pakistan, despite its stronger growth rate (although Pakistan's is strongly rebounding since the beginning of violence in 2008 - prior to that, Pakistan's growth rates were not far behind India's. India's growth rate has slowed to a still impressive 7.7% for the current year - nowhere near China's double digit growth though). China may be an advanced economy in 9 years, but India will not be. India cannot be compared to China at all, except for the fact that India may be today what China was 20 years ago. To put India on par with China is simply a distortion of reality that only serves to inflate egos. No objective observer would ever put today's India on the same level as China - the only people that do so are Indians themselves. The distant future may be different, but India's desperately poor masses will not be considered citizens of an advanced-economy country in only nine short years. Absolutely no country in the history of man has ever developed as quickly as you suggest India will - it is simply impossible, and no objective analyst has every suggested what you so confidently assert.

Numerous non-Indian sources describe India as an NIC (including academic ones)[3][4].Please remain constructive on this page. Wikipedia is a serious effort at building an encyclopedia, not a forum for posting Pakistani propaganda/rants. There are places for that.117.194.204.8 (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan's economic overview can be found at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html#Econ. Svr014 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)NICSupporter

Lol, you must be joking if you seriously believe that Pakistan is at the same level as India. Pakistan has never had a democratically elected government in it's 70 year history, it is frequently over run by military dictators, is filled with islamic extremist camps and terrorist organisations, is reliant on US and NATO aid for it's very survival. Neither is pakistan anywhere near as industrialized as India is. To compare Pakistan with India is laughable. Pakistan should worry more about stabilizing itself and improving it's conditions instead of getting upto India. As far as India and China are concerned, the gap is more due to economic policies than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalkibhagwan (talk • contribs) 03:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan is a failed state.It ranks 12 under world fragile index.How can it be industrialized.pakistan is largely dependent on US aids.Except China and that too for it's own benefits,no foreign country is willing to do business in Pakistan.It has a foreign direct investment equal to countries that is one fourth it's size.It does not even come under a developing nation and most foreign analysts states that it might collapse with growing islamic extremists in recent years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.252.85.187 (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

India is far from an Industrialized nation. Their pollution is absolutely catastrophic, if they start industrializing the country will become uninhabitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.36.83.25 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

Many Eastern European nations should be included as Newly industrialized countries. Poland for example is has many features of an advanced economy but lacking in other areas making it an emerging market. Zachorious 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, because Poland and other EE states are already industrialised. Kransky 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

EU membership doesn't automatically transform a country into "industrialized country" - if that was the case, Bulgaria would also be "industrialized" (which it definitely is not) and South Korea (NIC) is far more industrialized than any East European country (Hyundai, Daewoo, KIA, Samsung, Daikin, etc...) Flavius Belisarius 03:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, that EU membership does not make a country automatically industrialized, but Poland definitely earns this spot, if you compare it with the Philippines... There are even more countries I would consider much more industrialized than the ones here mentioned (Turkey, Philippines), like for example Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Estonia... but it has no sense to discuss it, this NIC theme is quite politically biased. --194.203.215.254 12:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The countries you have mentioned above(Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Estonia etc.) are not even a mere match for Turkey economicaly and on all other aspects. i suggest you to have a look at Turkey section of wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey) and compare the ones you have put forward as "industrialized countries". and please, don't make people laugh at you...Alsar83 (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is Argentina yellow?

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

OR problem

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

I'm sorry but you can't go article by article adding the OR tag when you don't even look at the references. In this case several books were used to create the article, so I suggest you to read those books. Thank you. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your efforts to enhance the article is appriciated and I did not comment about other parts of article. There is a one major list in the article with name of countries. Where is the refrence for such a list? If such a list is in any of the books, which one? You should clearly mention which page of which book or link has such a list. I would be happy to check it out as I have access to a large library.

If you kindely gathered such a list from your own research and underestanding then sorry based on OR policy it should be deleted unless you CLEARLY reference them. If you used different sources then you need to mention each source for each country. OR policy is very clear. Either wikipedian gives a proper source or that part should not be in Wikipedia. Please read OR policy.

I do not delete the current list and just tag it as OR for a while so if anyone wants can clear up the sources otherwise there is the OR policy.Farmanesh 01:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no OR problem. You are just doing this to include the countries you like (maybe Iran?) as you did in several other articles. I will remove the OR tag and the fact tag since the information is well referenced by TWO books. Now, it is not my fault if you lack the ability or willingness to click a link, or to go to you local library and ask for the book. Please stop asking for the deletion of perfectly cited information, as it is considered vandalism. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My friend there is no need for personal attack or accusation, they don't lead to healthy discussion and would only produce hatred. As I said before I am willing to look at any book or link you identify as reference. I really hope you do go and look at OR/V policies. They are here: [5] and [6].

It clearly says "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.". Anyone (including many who have just added a country like Arjentina) has the right to ask you to clearly provide the source for current list of countries.

Again, provide a clear refrnece to where there is such a list of countries identified as NIC or IT IS OR. Just giving name of 2 general books at the end of an article doesn't make it referenced.

As I see our discussion has reached a clear point, by now you either would kindley read OR/V policies and provide direct/clear reference or if you insist on current version then we need to start the "Dispute resolution" process which would bring few admins into our discussion so they can judge if you have provided clear/direct reference to list of countries in the article or not.

Again, no need for personal attack, I do respect the time and effort you have put on this article and by no way want you to feel anything personal. That said the decision to which countries should be considered NIC should be made by scholars outside wikipedia. and you need to bring real/clear/direct refrence.Farmanesh 14:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're being stubborn. The whole article (the list of countries included) is based in those two books. I have read OR before. The list is referenced by two excellents books written by experts in the topic, so please go to you library and stop this. I'm not gonna make your research easier, go and read the full book, that's not my duty. OR can only be argumented when there is a lack or sources, and this is clearly not the case. Your lack of willingness to read the books is frustrating. Read the book. I have. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 14:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

If the list is on those 2 books you need to give the exact page. It is a basic rule in refrnecing. You need to give the page.

Please just complete the refrence (give the number of pages) or if it comes from different pages say that.

I agree if you want to bring in an admin, seems you are not wishing to complete the refrence (saying where in those books have such a list). I am happy to clarify my question more if it is not clear yet: Where in those 2 books there is such a list of NIC countries?Farmanesh 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

OK, I think our discussion is more claer now, it is on whether just giving the name of several book as refrence is eanough or you need to give the page number which you take a table/list from.

I do belive it is a basic rule in refrencing from book to provide the exact page you are getting a table/list from.

I would be happy to have a third opinion here on this so please go on and bring an admin, if I am wrong and you do not need to give the page for the table/list you brought from a book then I would not insist anymore.Farmanesh 14:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The complete and ideal reference would be providing the book, ISBN, page number etc. but that is not in discussion. You tagged the list as OR. Ok, OR says that if it a statement cannot be sourced, it should be considered OR and deleted. Well, this is not the case. There were two books (that you ignored and refused to READ) and now, I have added a new reference. Your argument of Original Research has been refuted, since there are references. The "page number" of each book is not important in this discussion, since OR doesn't say it must be given, it just says sources, and the sources are there. And, do you know a policy called WP:Assume Good Faith? You are not assuming good faith, but attacking the references as "dubious" just because you are not willing to read them. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As for "assume good faith" I can't agree more with you. But refernce without page number is not complete and has problem with Verification policy. I did ask our question in help desk. Lets see what others think.Farmanesh 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not assuming good faith by "challenging" the content of the books. And your unwillingness to go to your library and ask for the book and patiently read it, proves it. You want all the work done, I'm sorry but that's not my job. If you are really interested in this matter, you should read the references provided. I read the full book, so you do it also. However, the main point is proved: there is no OR involved. Period. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

From the beginning I said OR/V policies and asked you to read both. I think our discussion is clear, lets get third person view. You say you would not give page numbers for the refrences (not to make readers work easier!) and I say it violates OR/Verifiablity policies as you need to make your refrence verifiable.Farmanesh 15:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

My friend, if you read Verifiability policy you see the burden for providing clear/verifiable refrnece is on you who want to keep the improperly-refrenced list in the page. Please read the policy [7].Farmanesh 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't you read? I'll make this easy for you: I just created the table, I did not "selected" the countries, the countries were already there, so did the references. After I created the table, I went to the library to check the sources (books) and yes, they exist. I read the two books and wrote down some information. Then I came and add that info to the article.

I can't tell you the page numbers, because I didn't pay attention to that, I just copied info. However, I can't do it now (even if I want to) because I don't own the book. I'd have to go to the library again. However, the OR is non existent because the source is there. It is not unsourced, although one can argue the reference could be ideal if the page number is provided. However, that's not as important as providing the source. Now, I did provided a third new source, (with chapter number and page), because the third book I just added is with me right now. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool down my friend and take it easy, I can read :) I appricite you spending time on the article and wikipedia. That said, still until you don't provide the page numbers which has the name of these countries, the current list (which now you say you made it) is not verifiable.

Oh my God... this is just ridiculous. I can't and won't provide the page numbers for a reference I did not add, you want the page numbers? Read the books. On the other hand, the list is verifiable, because anybody can read the books and see it. However, as I repeatedly said, I did add a new reference, and added title, author, chapter and page number, aswell as the ISBN. So, the list is referenced, and now, better referenced. I won't discuss this any further with you, since it is circular and fruitless. Any addition or deletion of perfectly verifiable information, will be considered vandalism, reverted and reported. Period. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Verifiablity policy is different from OR policy (although they are close to eachother). Please read it, and sorry if you want to keep that list it is up to you to provide the page numbers. If you need more time I am fine to wait few days before deleting Verifiability violating part of the article.Farmanesh 15:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Verifiability problem with list of NIC countries

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

The list of countries has always been there almost since somebody created the article, aswell as the references. Those references are perfectly valid and most importantly, verifiable. Anybody willing to read the books can verify it.

• Principles of Economics by N. Gregory Mankiw, 4th Edition 2007 (ISBN 0-32-422472-9)
• Geography, An Integrated Approach by David Waugh, 3rd edition (ISBN 0-17-444706-X)
• Globalization and the Transformation of Foreign Economic Policy by Paweł Bożyk, Chapter 7.3 "Newly Industrialized Countries", p.164. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2006. (ISBN 0-75-464638-6)

As a side note, minutes ago, I personally added the third reference. I added also the chapter number and the page, although it is not necessary. Title, author and ISBN are enough. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For my frined user AlexCov and others: There is an answer on our small disagreement here which confirms my view: [8] As you see if you don't give exact page number for list of those countries we need to delete them. They are arbitary my friend, someone before you added them. I don't say it is completely wrong (as you said you have seen them seperatly in books and I assume good faith). No, I am saying it is not verifiable unless someone gives exact refrence (with page number). So please take a rest, read what an admin said and come down. If you insist on your version after seeing an admins point, Verifiability policy page and my long disscussion with you; I should say you are vandalising the wikipedia policy. Please reconsider...Farmanesh 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

One MORE source

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

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

Third opinion

Ok. I think I've read over everything necessary to answer this correctly.

The table has been referenced sufficiently. The OR and other tags should not be used as references have been used. The page numbers are not required immediately; I'm not sure if they are even required at all. In any case, if they do need to be there, they can be added at a later date. There is no point in deleting perfectly reliable sources.

Farmanesh, trying to orchestrate your point by using the view of an "admin" (who was not an admin), amounts to a kind a bullying i.e "I've got my admin on you and if you don't do what they said then your violating wiki policy...". Also to accuse Alex of violating wiki policy was not productive when instructing that they keep a cool head. Alex, you should try to measure your tone just a little more carefully and stay neutral.

It is hard to keep a cool head sometimes, especially when you feel you are right, but let this third opinion settle your differences. If either of you want to contact me, you can catch me at my talk page. Hope this helped.

Seraphim Whipp 18:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for commenting in result of Alex's request on your talk page [9]. I wish you continued reading and you see an admin did actively give his/her opinion. I respect your (and Alex's) opinion very much and just want to have a better sourced page.Farmanesh 18:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I was cool at the begining (this debate didn't start here, but in other articles Farmanesh added OR tags as well). I have been trying to source this article and to improve it (check history) and his attitude was not good, because he didn't assume good faith and challenged the content, withouth even taking the time to read the books. I'm glag this is over and I hope Farmanesh will stop, specially now that 2 different persons helped. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No my friend, I would not stop :) as it is wikipedia's policy! Either any claim should have exact source or it should be deleted. As you don't accept my word, see policies and one admin's idea below.Farmanesh 19:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

---

p. 149, World Economic Outlook, IMF (April 2010): Newly Industrialized Asian Economies include Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. These are classified along with Euro Area, US, Canada and others as the “Advanced Economies” subgroup. There is a separate group called Emerging and Developing Economies, which may be further subdivided by the nature of their exports (primary commodity exporters), the level of foreign debt (heavily indebted poor countries, net creditor countries and net debtor countries) and so forth. For clarification of several disputes above, the following are classified as “Emerging and Developing Economies:” China, India, the Philippines, Turkey, Argentina, Chile and South Africa. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

About OR and Verifiability tag

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

Note the difference between unsourced material and original research:

Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source.

Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source.

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

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

I hope you noticed an admin did intervine and reverted your change to my version. I don't know how many admins should tell you until you accept as you claerly still insist in your old opinion. I wonder is there anyway you would consider you are wrong?

Anyhow I appricite you are adding more refrences, it is great. I wonder if you know something, you need to show your references for each part of article. For example if there is already a refrence for the list of countries in the refrence section you need to clearly identify it.

HAve a look here [10] as you see every main point is seperatly refrenced. This is how you can take the tags out, if you insist Mexico is NIC then you need to bring an exact/direct refrence saying that and link it exactly where you claim mexico is NIC.

Until you do that (for each and every country in the list) it is V/OR problem (as an admin said). To be fair I am happy to wait few days before deleting name of those countries without clear refrnece if you need time.Farmanesh 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of tagging the whole section, why don't you put a {{fact}} tag next to the specific countries you are disputing? That will help editors find the sources you want to see. Kafziel ^Talk 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kafziel, that's a great solution. However, the problem here is that he cannot know what country is mentioned and what country is not in the references, because he's not willing to go and read the book. Needless to say, every country listed is mentioned. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I do not dispute just one country there, all of them need specific refrence to why they are included as NIC.

Although I appricite the fact he is now adding sources and I wait to see how it goes. The page similar to this article topic with proper citation is Great power countries. Each country has its own refrences.

LIke Great power you need to source each country.Farmanesh 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, if you want to "dispute" anything, you first need to read the books, and you haven't read them. After you read them, and if you don't see the name of any of those countries listed, then you can claim anything. You can't dispute a list just because you don't like it. You can't dispute the list if there are references. You can't dispute anything if you haven't read the books first. That doesn't have logic. I can go article by article disputing all the content just because "I haven't read it", or because I'm not willing to go to the library and read the book.

Each of the 4 books provided, mention every country listed in the table. AGAIN, there is no need to add the SAME REFERENCE next to the name of each country, because each book list them in the same line, paragraph or table. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As for refrence, you need to give direct refrence why for example Mexico or Bahrain are NIC. Just a general book without specification is not enough. You should identify which one-which page says for example Bahrain is NIC.

PLease look at Great power and see how it should be done. Also see verifiablity policy as says: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."

I can't belivie how much of everybodies time you are taking on this simple issue.Farmanesh 18:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Farmanesh, I can independently verify that P.164 (as noted in the refs section) of "Globalization and the Transformation of Foreign Economic Policy" lists South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Brazil and Mexico as 1st generation NICs (high levels of industrialization began in the 1960s); Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Cyprus, and Jordan as 2nd generation NICs (began in the 1980s); and India, Egypt, Argentina, and Chile as 3rd generation NICs (began since the 1980s). So any of those countries are covered by that source (although, yes, they should each cite that same source on their own lines). Kafziel ^Talk 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thank you Kafziel. I would happily add those sources to those countries. and as for other countries if anyone wants to keep them should kindely add specific new source.Farmanesh 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

ALL the countries are referenced. As Kaziel suggest, I'll then add the inline citation for each country (which is repetitive... but ok...). Kaziel could verify it, you know why? Because he took the time to READ the references, a thing you haven't done and you still dare to dispute the references. Now, it is time to remove the OR tag. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

We are not "taking out" any country. Every country is listed in the references. You can't say if a country is/is not in the references because, ooppss, you are not willing the read the sources. So if you haven't read the book, then you can't really say the countries are not there. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've formatted the "Globalization" reference as an example of how they should all be set up. When citing a book, use the {{cite book}} template inside the <ref> notations to make sure the proper format comes through. Use <ref name=(whatever name you want)> instead of <ref> to keep the references section from becoming too long; instead of multiple entries of the same source, you will have just one source with multiple links to it (listed as a,b,c, etc.). Then copy and paste the whole citation next to the proper countries in the chart. If you need more help, let me know. Kafziel ^Talk 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help. If we do add specific reference to each country (as you did for some) we can take out the tag and feel better as now we have a nice referenced page.Farmanesh 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OR/Verifiablity discussion

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

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

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

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

Alex seems you have no idea how to have a civil discussion, you called me many things during this whole discussion, taged my talk-page as vandal, called me lier and now accuse me of something I didn't even try to do and you just think I might have like to do! In civilized world we try to keep things professional and not attack personally.

I hope you learn that someday, seems this process didn't help. and now you announce a winner or loser here? Is this all about for you? What I did had nothing about proving you wrong or right! It was and still is asking anyone (not only you) to provide proper refrencing.

And BTW this is not finished, this article is in the first steps, we need to work much more on it toghther. If you really like to find a winner it is wikipedia and ultimatly everyone. For that I am happy and proud.

Now lets get back to work, your source number 4 and 5 does not have a page number and it is not verifiable. You need to add page number if you want to keep those countries there...Farmanesh 04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just ignore you from now on. One can't take seriously a person that say is "interested in the subject", but then, is not willing to read a book about the subject. That doesn't make any sense. And no, it is not "my" source. I did not add it. It was the first reference somebody added when the article was written. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 13:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

There's no "verifiability problem". You were able to locate the book, right? Then it's verifiable, just open it, read it and verify; and please help us to indicate the exact page (if you read it...) The only problem is that you didn't seem to want to read it. I wonder why...

There's nothing to discuss, you can't dispute the content of a book you haven't even read. Can you tell a book is about a subject just because of its cover? You need to read it. Or tell me, have you read it?

If you want persons to take you seriosly, then follow the propper logical steps to challenge a source: verify the source exists (it exists, since you were able to "see the cover"), verify the content of the book. Oooppss... you haven't read it. So you can't say anything about it. I have read that book, and one of the chapters is about Human Geography, including economics and, of course, a description of what a NIC is and a list of countries currently considered NICs. And no, I did not add that source. That book was the first reference added when the article was written. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 13:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alex, I think I give up on you. You easily get angry and start personal attack and name calling and worse you would not consider the smallest chance that you may be 1% wrong. I just paste what Admin:Kafziel wrote answering my above question and your defence to it on his talk page as an archive for others:

"You are well within your rights to place a {{verify source}} tag after the countries on the list that cite books without page numbers. Just place a note of explanation on the talk page and try to tread lightly; no need to stir up the situation again by placing big tags on the section. In the meantime, I will see if I can find different, web-based sources for the information. If we don't get page numbers or new sources after a week or so, it would be okay to remove the countries that are not verified. Kafziel ^Talk 12:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)"

"Nobody is saying the book doesn't exist. But if you can't provide a page number, then the source is not verified. That's exactly what that tag is for. We can not expect everyone to read an entire book to try to find the source. It's not that he doesn't "dare" to read the book - not everyone's library has a copy of every obscure college textbook, so it's not as easy as you claim. If it's so easy to look this up, you should be able to look it up and tell us what page it's on. Is there a reason you can't do that? If someone requests a page number, we must provide one or the information can be removed. Kafziel ^Talk 13:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)"

Also in result of User:AlexCovarrubias uncivil behaviour admin-User:Kafziel left following comment on User:AlexCovarrubias's talk page here:[11]. Admin:Kafziel writes to User:AlexCovarrubias:

"Please calm down. I've been very patient so far, but if you can't discuss the situation without being rude, I will block you for personal attacks. I don't want to do that, so please stop accusing Farmanesh of wrongdoing. Sarcastic remarks like this do not help. You're not going to win this by attacking him or questioning his motives. You only have two options: provide a page number or accept the fact that there will be dispute tags on the article until someone else provides a page number. There is no other option, and if you continue the personal attacks I will have no choice but to stop you. Kafziel ^Talk 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)"

I would try to minimize the one-on-one talk between me and Alex and make the case more genral for all wikipedian who may want to contribute. and as it is wikipedia policy and confirmed by admin:Kafziel (as Alex would not accept the policy on its own and you need an admin to tell him), I will remove unverifiable refrences (with countries based on them) after a while.

Anyone who cares to keep them, please add exact/verifiable source.Farmanesh 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you also gonna paste that he and I are now in good terms? Are you also gonna paste that he added the "have a beer" template (a friendly template)? Are you also gonna add that he actually helped me in re-ordering the references? No, right?. You are only gonna paste whatever you think "help" your point, and as a side note, doing that is also uncivil since it heats up an ended debate. The fact is that the list is well referenced, always has been and will be. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I am happy you sound more polite now although you still do your normal personal-attack thing accusing me of bias. Anyhow, I wanted to say regardless of all the resistance and problems I thank you for adding proper refrences and yes as far as the current references remain un-disputed no country is going to be deleted.Farmanesh 18:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't thank me. I did it for Wikipedia. As a side note, I hope you really get to read those books one day. It would have helped a lot if you read them in the first place, as logic points. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Baron's dictrionary

The source added to include Argentina is a dictionary of economical terms. It doesn't seem to be a reliable source. However, after checking the source (7th edition, the newest, 2006, p.629), it doesn't include Argentina or any other country. It just gives a simple definition of what a NIC is (a dictrionary definition), and according to it is:

Developing country whose economy is supported in a greater or lesser degree, on exports from internally generated industrial production, rather than on agricultural products or commodities.

That's all. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 14:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Alex, based on the references I gave you, I strongly recommend that you include Argentina, Chile and Israel, unless you wish to redefine NICs as to "countries that industrialized just recently [over the last four decades]". --the Dúnadan 19:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of Argentina and Chile is also supported by the "Newly Industrialized Countries" reference. Kafziel ^Talk 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

David Waugh book does not mention GCC countries

After a month of waiting and personal cost I obtained David Waugh book "Geography, An Integrated Approach". The pages given does not mention any of GCC countries.Farmanesh 23:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly doubt you "got the book". You must have seen the message left by user Redishflag on my talk page, and then you commented... I can assure you the book does mention the GCC countries (I read it, I saw it), but accordding to Redishflag it makes a distinction from "selected countries" and NICs in a table about manufacturing industries.

I didn't see that but I conceded since I don't have the book with me right now and I do trust him. So the GCC countries where eliminated until further confirmation. By the way, if you have the book with you, would you please do us all a favor and scan the page? AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the book right in front of me, a coincidence me and Redishflag got it in the same time. Yes it does mention NICs but no mention of the countries you assigned this book as their reference as NIC.Farmanesh 02:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I assigned? No, stop trying to make me look bad. When I rewrote the article those countries where already there backed up with Waugh's book. I just read the book to check if they were there. And they are in chapter 19, but accordingly with Redishflag, they are not categorized as NIC althought they are in a table with NICs. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 03:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We stoped deleting those countries because you gave exact page number that those countries were supposedly mentioned in that book as NIC (e.g., here [12]). Now you say you missed it for any reason, fine. Farmanesh 03:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

See I was right, you're trying to make me "look bad". Whatever. Redishflag told me in that table, there are fine prints (I guess in the caption of the table), that says "Manufacturing production in selected countries and NICs". I didn't see that, I just payed attention to the table where the GCC countries are. Now, you have the book! You just said it! Could you please prove it and scan the page? I mean I provided the page number and everything, it is not gonna be difficult for you to find the info. Or what's your excuse now? Jesus... calm down... AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 03:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure you are always right. I do not mean you added the reference in first place. Anyhow it is history. I do not have access to scanner easily unless if I pay for it.

BTW would you please update the map of NIC countries?Farmanesh 03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Farmanesh, I apologise. Now I see I was rude, I'm sorry. It is just that your whole argument seemed to be to "make me look bad". Look, I don't make edits to exclude countries or something, I stick to the rules. I read the book, found the table and fixed the reference, that's all. I might have been missed the fine prints, but I'm willing to correct that. I will have the book in my hands again tomorrow morning and I will check that personally. And yes, I will fix the map. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Never during our discussions I had intention to be personally agaisnt you. I wish our disscusion would have been be more calm.

But seriously the result has been a better article, so I am fine. cheers

Farmanesh 04:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Turkey

Why is Turkey positioned in Europe in the table? Only a very small portion of Turkish territory lies in Europe.--Arado 12:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Turkey is not the member of any Asian political or economic organization, but is politically and economically a part of Europe and the European institutions (similar case with Cyprus). More than 80% of Turkey's trade is with the EU, with which Turkey has a Customs Union since 1995. Turkey is also a member of the Council of Europe since 1949 (even before Germany) and an associate member of the EEC (now the EU) since 1963 and of the Western European Union since 1992. Not to mention that Turkey was a founding member of the OECD, as part of its European branch. 151.42.183.146 23:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

All your argument is based in organizations that somehow they hold Europe in their names. I certain you could argue that Turkey national soccer team plays belongs to Union of European Football Associations or that they participate in Eurovision song contest. Following your arguments, when Morocco becomes part of the EU, the country will not belong anymore to Africa. I hope you do not propose that because Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization they have coastline in the Atlantic Ocean.

Which still don't make it European! For example: If southern country for no matter what reason, trade mostly with northern country it does not make it northern! If it don't fit it existing tables, then tables must be updated, to be more accurate. Not to be ridiculously bended or stretched. On this logic we can apply that Russia is also European country, because EU is very dependent on Russian energy resources.

Turkey is geopolitically European. Period. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you develop your argumentation further? In particular the geographical argument.

Turkey is geopolitically and historically a part of Europe.Almost the half of Europe was under rules of Ottomans for 500 years long. You can visit the page about " OTTOMAN EMPIRE ".--Cengiz ergun1987 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottomans covered in their maximum extension around a fifth of the total area of Europe. Those 500 years they are arguable, but following the same line of reason they were for 700 year in Asia, from their very beginning to their end. However, the topic is about the current Turkey, not the former Ottoman Empire.

although Turkey is a transcontinental country,Turkey generally classify as a european country and it is sociopolitically in Europe, also economic issues (OECD,Council of Europe,Eurosphere,European Trade union,candidate status for EU full membership) shows that Turkey is how much European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.164.14.142 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Europe is a continent. A geographical convention based on physical boundaries. This terms can be found and discussed in Continent. So, according to that convention, Turkey is a contiguous transcontinental country, located mostly on Anatolia in Western Asia. Sociopolitical, economical or cultural arguments should not be used into this discussion, but they are welcome to discuss the boundaries between continents. As a note, not as an argument, Asia was originally used in ancient Greece to refer to the location of the current Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.254.121 (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Egypt is a newly industralised country

I am not sure if you have much knowledge of Egypt other than the Pyramids, deserts and camels. However, Egypt fits very much in the criteria of a newly industralised country since its economy is fastly growing for the past four years as well as FDIs have increased almost by 100% between 2006 and 2007 to 11.1 bn. USD. Egypt has always been Africa's second most industrialised economy and the Arab world's most industrialised economy. According to Goldsman Sachs "Next Eleven" report, Egypt is officially expected to be a developed country by the year 2020. Accordingly, I kindly request you to update your map as well as your article on the newly industrialised countries list to include Egypt, in order to reflect the reality. I think, it would be unrealistic to ignore a regional economic power like Egypt when you are talking about newly industrialised countries. Egypt is referenced to be an NIC in p.164 & 170 of the "Globalization and the Transformation of Foreign Economic Policy" book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.185.17.186 (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

They are a newly industrialized nation, but since the G14 plan is yet to go in affect, it's not. But it would be soon be classified as a newly industrialized nation.--BubbleDude22 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Updating of Map & Table

The map and table needs to be updated to include all countries as per the "Globalization and the Transformation of Foreign Economic Policy" book. Page 164 of that book lists 15 NICs.

Iran

Iran became fairly industrialized in the recent years (more so than many countries in the list) but I guess U.S. foreign policy dictates us to turn a blind eye on this fact. Another reason might be the fact that Iran is not a member of the World Trade Organization (it's sort of a pirate state in terms of business) and many foreign companies which invested in Iran went bust because they couldn't get their money (one example being the TAV consortium of Turkey in the Imam Khomeini International Airport project.) In such incidents, there is no international body to which foreign companies in Iran (or similarly, Libya) can appeal to. 151.42.183.146 23:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-NIC countries

I have noted that some users have been adding and deleting several countries from the table (Argentina and Egypt). The current table is composed of countries that are mentioned as NIC by several authors and books, and that are firmly classified as NICs. If you want to add a country please add the propper reference.

We can also create a table of countries that are rarely mentioned or classified as NICs. Adding such countries in the main table would create the false impression that they are also fully recognized as NICs, thus creating a problem of undue weight. That's my suggestion.

But please, remember the main rule, add references! Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I just want to remind the users that added Egypt without references, that the citation needed template has been placed in the table. I didn't erase Egypt because one must to assume good faith. I have also learnt that adding the citation needed tag is the best practice and then wait for several days (an admin. recommended 3 days) to see if somebody adds references. If this is not done, thent he information can be erased without any problem. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 19:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-NIC countries Reply

I do not know why does Alex insists to ignore the information contained in the "Globalization and the Transformation of Foreign Economic Policy" book. Please take the time to read the "Egypt is a newly industralised country" section of this argument page and then you should be able to find the citation needed. If Egypt is deleted from this table, I will continullay add it. It really looks like Alex is intentionally ignoring facts and only adding countries that he personally likes. Please stop misleading the public and add all countries mentioned in the said book including Egypt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.214.109 (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear anononimous user. I was the person that read the book in the first place. I cited the title, author and even page number for every reference. I never found Egypt in any of the chapters about NICs or mentioned as such. It is mentioned as a probable new set of NIC in the future, but not as a current NIC. I kindly asked the person that introduced Egytp into the table (I guess it was you?) to cite a source, because he just copied the same reference even with the same page number and that page does not mention Egypt as a NIC.

Please notice that I could have just deleted Egypt from the table. Instead I asked for a real reference and waited. It's been 5 days and nobody has introduced the proper source. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 03:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I don't think that you have read this book properly. Anhway, Egypt was quoted by the author of the book as a third generation NIC which has moved to a first place position due to the fast speed of transformation. This data is included in pages 164, 167 & 170 of the book. I have included a small snapshot of the actual literature written in these pages of the book as searched from the Amazon book website. Please review the following link and tell me what you think... http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0754646386/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-3744665-4640741#reader-link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.214.109 (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex, When you get to the link that I sent above, type the word "Egypt" and then press the search button and a snapshot of all the pages that I mentioned will be displayed to you. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.214.109 (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, I was unable to see the actual page snapshot. Windows prevented me from doing it because it had an "unidentified DLL file". I was, however, able to read a small portion of the text in page 164 (when I searched for Egypt). I was surprised about it and about the generations of NICs because that wasn't included in the edition I read months ago (this books appears to be the third edition). Could you please paste a screenshot of the entire page? Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I was unable to print or even paste the page anywhere as this is copyrighted material and is only meant for reviewing. However, if you click on the page numbers as displayed by the snapshot page you should be able to access the full page. One other way of reviewing the pages is to type for pages 164, 167 & 170 each at a time and then press the search button. You might need first to establish an account (I am not really sure) with Amazon to be able to review pages even if you do not need to purchase. Anyway, I think for now you need to update your table and map to include all other NICs (including Egypt). Please let me know how can I be of further help to you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.214.109 (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to include Philippines anyway ?

Some people already argue about this. I think they got a good point here, there's no reason to put it in the list. Sure the book did mention the country's name, but it also mentioned Indonesia, which a sane person will agree it shouldn't be on the list. This country has no economic significance or any outstanding multinational companies like in India and China, and it is undoubtedly have lower achievenment compared to its neighbour like Malaysia and Thailand. Instead of concentrating on production, the country economy depends quite a lot on remmitance, mostly millions of low-paid workers send their money back to their home country, which gives huge contribution to their GDP. There's much better candidates can fill the list like a couple of countries in south America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomo1 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

ahahahaha!! your just a loser! maybe your country is not included coz it is a loser like you! ahahaha! who are you to decide which is NIC or which is not! before you comment! pls search more, coz Philippines is more than meets the eye! get it! hahahah! and correction our workers abroad are one of the highest paid compare to indonesia bangladesh and even malaysians! and most of them are not just workers but processional workers. their remittances is only more or less 12 billion dollar! and you said philippines has no economic significance!! your wrong! it is 2nd biggest BPO in Asia next to India!, and 2nd most significant destination of BPO in asia! it is the home of International rice research institute which promote better harvest of rice in asia and promoted he first Green Revolution substantially increased rice production in many countries in Asia.. our industry is on the rise, so dont be a sour grapes ok!

You are not the first user that comment based in that, in their opinion, a certain country should/should not be included. We are not here to "decide" what country is a NIC what country is not. We simply research the subject and if we find enough and strong evidence that a country is a NIC, we add it to the table. We just must not decide what is and what is not a NIC. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 21:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Philippines is economically significant. It is the world's top supplier of civilian maritime personnel.(crew/officers of ships) Without maritime personnel, the world shipping industry and global trade will suffer tremendously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.176.50 (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, before anybody makes a comment on whether the Philippines should be included in the list of NIC's or not bear this in mind. Study how to compose your articles properly. I'm a Filipino and from what I've read here (especially those who ridicule the Philippines), you people don't even know how to use English properly. Us Filipinos know what we are talking about and know how to properly compose it.

The Philippines is more than just overseas workers. We have a solid banking system which has so far withstood the current economic collapse of wealthier countries. Our manufacturing and services sectors are also rapidly expanding. The country's economic principles are solid and like it or not, the Philippines will be rightfully take its place in the world economic stage. Something it should have been able to achieve decades ago.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mitzkel" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitzkel (talk • contribs) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, The Philippines is one of the best performing economies in South East Asia during the mid 2000s Themanilaxperience (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be, but we will have to wait at least 50 years to have useful data to support that POV.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Outdated Terminology

the use of "developing" and "first world" in this article is outdated terminology; the latter since the fall of the second world block; and the former since the realisation that development is not an exclusivly economic concept X User

"First wold country" is political terminology not a economical terminology it used wrong in article you should replace it with "Developed" country. As a sample Turkey is a first world country politically but its also NIC country economically. Mr. Lobaloba

Fair Trade movement

Under the Brief Economic Analysis section, there is a sentence about fair trade that looked like it had suffered some copy-and-paste mistake. I tried to fix it up so it at least makes sense, but it could still use some work by someone more knowledgeable in the area. (Just a note, I did not add the above section, although I did edit so that it was it's own section, as seems to have been the intent of the author) 142.58.225.52 (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mexico is NOT a developed country

Hi,

I just now checked with the elaborate list of developed countries (DCs) in the CIA World Factbook. The link is https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html. Yes, Mexico can be considered a NIC, but not a developed country. Svr014 (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)NICSupporter

Quite correct! but, Mexico is the most developed of the NIC's. It has the best HDI and the highest GDP per head both in PPP and in Gross Anual National Income. From all the developing countries and NIC's in the world, Mexico is one of the most developed, if not the most developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.245.211 (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that in the paragraph titled "Current NIC Countries", there is a typo in the line mentioning that "Mexico, Turkey, and South Africa are classified as developed countries by the CIA". I checked up with the CIA World Factbook and found that Mexico is classified as a developing country and not a developed country (DC). Countries like China, India, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore are classified as Less Developed Countries (LDCs). These countries are also classified as advanced developing countries in the same catagory (LDCs). The link to the source is https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html. Svr014 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• The CIA is hardly an accurate source for evaluating an economy. Aren't children's encyclopaedias such as Worldbook more extensive in their analysis? Isn't the CIA historically known for its lack of assessment capability? Mexico is also not considered a "developed" country in the Goldman Sachs research reports that are utilized for this article, and is regarded by them to be of similar status with Korea in the context of development, although this seems dubious as well since the evaluation is made on only 2 or 3 statistical references. However, Mexico's major problem in being considered a NIC is the inequitable distribution of income, regardless of the "average" of GDP per capita. That would be why they have as much social unrest as Thailand, Jamaica or Burma - each of whom (with the exception of Burma) have been regarded as fast "developing" countries in the past. However, it would be a clear misrepresentation to categorize Mexico as either a NIC or a developed country using any consistent definition. Has anyone ever been to Mexico, other than to a resort? Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• • To clarify that statement, Mexico can definitely be called an NIC, but not a developed country. Outside the resorts, there is a mixed picture. Certainly, major urban centers (Mexico City, Guadalajara, Tijuana, etc) have many things that are like a developed country (i.e. modern transportation system, proper sanitation, fast growing middle class, etc) but many more poorer regions (i.e. Oaxaca) often lack such things. Certainly the situation in poor regions is improving, but it still lags behind to other regions. Let's not forget the infamous poorer neighborhoods and slums of some Mexican cities. --GuyWithoutAUsername (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Modification to the issues section

Hi,

I just made a decent modification to the issues section. It now looks clear enough. Svr014 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

Correction to the Current NIC countries section

Hi,

I checked with the CIA World Factbook and found that Mexico is classified as a developing country and NOT a developed country. Turkey is a developed country. South Africa is classified as both a developing country and a developed country. Svr014 (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

Incorrect information...

I had to correct some of the information that are deemed incorrect according to the article. Mexico is a developing country and NOT a developed country. Also, only 27.5% of Indians live under the national poverty line and not 77% percent. I have reported the user to the administrator of english wikipedia. He will be blocked from using WP again. Sources: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svr014 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Article needs total revamp

I don't see any standard or accepted definition for a "newly industrialized country" (which, from the articles in the media seem to include the likes of Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore). The countries mentioned in the media references are by any definition *developed* countries and I see this article degenerating into a pointless debate about what countries are developed. The countries in this list should be those that the accepted definition refers to, viz. South Korea, Singapore, etc. Cribananda (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Corrections to the page

I with the correct sources made alterations to the page. It is now in a good condition. Please protect it. Svr014 (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

New information added to the page...

Hi All,

I and other editors have added new information to the page. They are very informative. Svr014 (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Problems with classification and Turkey

The article states that "NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached first world status..." Yet it states that Turkey is a NIC. But Turkey has long been categorized as a first world country. The second world refers to the mainly former communist states, and the third world for the underdeveloped countries in mainly Asia and Africa. Turkey, actually, does not fit into any of the categories. For further information look at First World. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The categories of First, Second, and Third world are archaic classifications that are no longer used. Present-day Turkey shouldn't be discussed at all in terms of "not yet" reaching first world status. That Cold War system of classifications has been replaced by more complex categories -- like newly-industrialized countries, for example. DoItAgain (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Protected

locked the page for 24 hours to shut down the edit war, discuss it and agree or I'll block the next one to blindly revert. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Israel

Is not Israel a newly-industrialized country?--MathFacts (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the page says the term is best applied to developing countries with higher-than-average industrial output. Israel, in most indicators (whether social or economical), is clearly more aligned with fully developed economies than with any other group. Guinsberg (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd world country

Could the term "2nd world country" be used to describe NICs (or at least some of them)? I know the Cold War definition of 2nd world country, but I was wondering if it could be applied in a modern sense (like how some former communist nations are now considered 1st world or 3rd world).--76.83.1.76 (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it couldn't. 2nd World is no longer used in scholarship to refer to any country. And as a matter of fact, I've never seen the NIC term being used to refer to most countries on the article's list either. 189.119.179.225 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"European Turkey"

Please note when you are editing this article that Turkey is NOT a European country; it just yearns to be one.
This country is part of NATO and OECD, fine. America is part NATO and Japan of OECD, do you really think that it makes them European countries ? I don't think so.
In addition to obvious historical and cultural reasons, Turkey is not even GEOGRAPHICALLY in Europe : only 3% of its territory is in Europe. So please not see Turkey as a European country. (I know that most Americans usually consider it this way, because its a NATO member or something)

Wikipedia considers Turkey to be in Europe and Asia: see Countries of Europe. It's worth noting that Turkey is a candidate state to join the European Union, and takes part in European cultural events like the European football championships and Eurovision Song Contest. Robofish (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, watch out -- I've noticed this guy's been going around a bunch of Wikipedia articles changing everything that has Turkey and Europe in it... changing Turkey to being in Asia only and then stating that 3% of its territory is in Europe. CouchTomato (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeahhh ... So why we don't look at the map ? Oh, it is difficult for me to find Turkey in green, but maybe it's time for me to wear glasses ? Seriously, it has very little part of its territory in Europe, but the overwhelming majority is in Asia. That's a fact. Then, you can discuss that it wants to be part of the EU, or things about football ... Fine. But it won't change geography.

Someone has really to explain me :

Location	Part of territory
Asia	97%
Europe	3%

But you keep considering Turkey only as a European. It defying all logic.

Last but not least, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference by itself.

82.241.244.179 (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, Turkey is not only European. It's been stated many times that it's considered both European and Asian. However in some cases, especially with classification, we have to choose where to put it, since you can't just split it. In that case, we go with European thanks to geopolitical and historical links to Europe. And the arguments for this have been stated time and time again. Its association with geopolitical organizations... not to mention its concentration of wealth and population in the west (especially in the European sector), its strong focus in Istanbul (mainly a European city), and its historical influence and territory over the Balkan region. Second, of course Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference by itself. But in this case, Wikipedia is being used as a reference on how to write Wikipedia articles. I don't think there is a better source than that. Third, you seem to be completely focused on geography alone. This is geopolitics, which often go beyond the tectonic formations and historical geographic classifications. I'll pose data this to you for the breakdown of geography in Cyprus:

Location	Part of territory
Asia	100%
Europe	0%

Unless you've created a double-standard, you should also change all the articles so that Cyprus is in Asia. Yet it's included in Europe because of geopolitical and not just geographical reasons. CouchTomato (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So, geographically, Turkey can't be considered in Europe. Otherwise, Spain is African and France is American ... For the geography, Turkey is definitely not European.  Done

Now, let's talk about historical and geopolitic reasons. Well, as I said before, there are members of OECD or NATO that are not European, then arguing that Turkey is European because of those arganisations is as intelligent as saying that Japan or Canada are Europeans. What's left ? Being part of a 'European' football competition ? That's little ...

You say that it is 'European' because of its membership of organisations ... Well, can you give a credible example ? (NATO and OECD excluded, as I explained you). Other thing, being a member of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe is neither acceptable to show the 'Europeanness' of a country, because Uzbekistan is one of its members, and is Asian.

For Cyprus, hmm ... The European Institutions consider Cyprus to has been 'a crossing point between Europe, Asia and Africa' for centuries, but it's now part of Europe. [13] And by the way, Cyprus has (virtual) frontiers with Western Asia, such as Turkey, of course, but has not frontiers with Iran or Iraq ... Unlike Turkey.

And last but not least (bis), Cyprus is a member of the European Union, Turkey isn't.

So, we have a state that is not located in Europe, that is not part of the European Union, but a member of some so-called 'European' organisations, but other non-European countries are part of it ... It will be awkward to defend the point of view that Turkey is European now. But I'm waiting for your arguments, or sources (because you never give them...). 82.241.244.179 (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Plan poster. Hey, look at that red flag there in the circle of other European flags!

Actually no, Spain and France would be considered African or South American if you had to choose because those are territories outside of the mainland. And yes, France would be a South American continent by the same logic, and you can see that reflected in Wikipedia as well. You keep saying that Turkey is not in Europe, when it is a fact that it is, regardless of its 3% size. The argument should be whether it is included in Europe over Asia/the Middle East, but most of your arguments are for something that is already fact. Considering that their size, population, and culture of these Spanish autonomous cities and French Guiana are negligible in comparison to the mainland and the continents make them not even close comparisons to Turkey's situation. Now to address the other points you bring up:

1) Organizations. NATO is an American-European alliance, so notice how every member can either be called North American or European. The OECD is a horrible example because it's an international organization and has nothing to co with Europe. There is the fact that it's a European Union candidate, which you seem to dismiss, but carries a lot more weight than not a candidate. Oh yeah, to turn your own link against you: [14]. Notice how the EU website itself includes Turkey in its list of European countries -- as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan, other countries commonly included in Europe, but even less so often than Turkey. Next, Turkey's in the [Council of Europe].[15]. Check out the main page and see who is the current chairman. I'll concede the OSCE only because of the Central Asian members -- but you should know they're included because of their former membership in the Soviet Union. Finally there is the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative [16]. Then of course, there are the sports teams, such as Turkey being in the UEFA (you know, the organization that has the Euro tournament) as well as [FIBA Europe]. If being on the Council of Europe doesn't convince you, then I don't know what will.

2) Borders. With regards to Cyprus, those same European institutions (as linked above) consider Turkey in Europe much like they consider Cyprus. And your virtual frontiers argument is completely irrelevant. If Turkey were completely Asian, would that make Greece not Asian because it borders Turkey? Russia borders China, yet there's little disagreement about Russia's status as a European country. France borders Brazil technically, so it's less European?

So we have a state that is not actually geographically located in Europe (Cyprus), which you let go. While in the meantime, Turkey actually has a sizeable portion of land in Europe, which by the way, is larger than a good number of entire European countries -- and let's not get in to the population. CouchTomato (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not new. Once in a while some racist shows up in Wikipedia and starts changing Turkey to Asia, even if historically and geopolitically is an European state. There's only one person behind this, so this tells us that his POV is actually a bias, and in my experience, xenophobia or plain racism. There's no need to explain our reasons to people that won't listen. We have the references and history behind us. Turkey is geopolitically in Europe. Period. Deal with it. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It is more frequent that xenophobic people that places Turkey in Europe, since ancient Greece, Anatolia it has been labelled as Asia. Apparently being part of Asia is not as well considered as being part of Europe. These people tend to argue using fallacies, and they are not open for discussion. Do you have any trouble Asia or asian people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.254.121 (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the ongoing debate about which continent Turkey (and perhaps other countries) are located, apparently involving certain inflexible editors, the only equitable solution is to not list the continent at all. And there is no reason to: this article is about NICs, not about which continent certain editors decide to place them. So, I have removed this column from the table. 76.66.26.228 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I usually don't comment on proved anonymous sock-pupeters. I just want to say that your "equitable" solution is another way to erase the correct notion that Turkey is geopolitically part of Europe. This is an economic topic, so geopolitics counts. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Asserting the country's location is making a point beyond the topic of the article. Anyhow, someone in a glass house shouldn't throw stones. 76.66.26.228 (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Rough continuation of talk

I recently placed Turkey with other Asian countries but my edit was reverted with an edit summary stating Turkey is in geopolitical Europe. Turkey is not completely European or Asian, geopolitical or geographically. To suggest that it is solely European is misleading and original research. So, to combat this problem, I suggest renaming "Europe" to "Eurasia." As it is both geopolitically and geographically in both Asia and Europe, this makes the most sense. Turkey is special in this way. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 01:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing how there has been no response, I will assume there is no opposition to my proposal and make the change shortly. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 04:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I left a message in your talk page right after you changed the table, so you should assume there's opposition. Turkey is a transcontinental country, but NIC is a geopolitical/socioeconomic category so the table has geopolitic regions and Turkey is part of Europe, geopolitically. Turkey is not integrated into Asia, and "Eurasia" is not a geopolitical region. For instance we have Turkey as being a founding member of the OECD, part of the European Economic Council and since 2005 is in negotiations to enter the European Union as a full member. So far Turkey has a customs agreement with the EU. Turkey is also a founding member of NATO and so on and on.

That's why nobody objects the fact that Turkey is part of Europe, geopolitically. Nobody but you and a racist former user anti-Turkish. This article has been this way since a lot of years ago. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You responded to my talk page proceeding the mention I left here. I would appreciate in the future, that instead of posting article matters on my talk page, you post at the designate talk page of the respective article. I added a note to the material in question. That should assist in preventing future confusion and misunderstanding. Though it could be argued more reliable sources are warranted to support its geopolitical grouping. The fact that the only references are books makes the grouping more difficult to verify. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 06:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Philippines

It is really funny, that that country is mentioned only in the table but not once in the text. -- 112.205.18.138 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Addition of other NICs and Sri Lanka

The current list of NICs was created based on the continous, repetitive and widely inclusion of such countries among authors. Some authors, based on their own criteria might add or remove some countries, but the current list of nations are strongly world wide recognized as NICs, proved by the amount of sources.

Some nations are rarely mentioned such as the case of Argentina, Chile, Egypt, Indonesia and Russia. That is why we included a section called "Other NICs". Anonymous IP user should read that section and perhaps include Sri Lanka there, if he can provide a source.

AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Negative I have provided sufficient source, on par with the 'recognized' NIC's. all you need to do is to reference it onto the main article. I'm not sure how to do that. my source can be found on the edit history of the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears the source is good and does list Sri Lanka as an NIC in passing mention (see pg. 81 on Google Books). However, we really should use more than one reliable source; Brohman states that In addition, a number of other Asian countries (e.g., Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey) have recently been given the status of NICs in much of the development literature.; as such, there should be a number of reliable sources from the development literature that classify Sri Lanka as an NIC. We should find journal articles and perhaps a few other books so that it is well-cited. As to where in the article it should appear, I'm not certain. If the preponderance of the literature we can find does not support or otherwise contradicts Brohman's assertion, we'll have to go with the sources. John Shandy` • talk 07:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course. If Sri Lanka is now widely considered a NIC, there should be at least 5 sources indicating this. Other way, it will be added to the "other NICs" section. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did you come up with the figure 5? what part of "been given the status of NICs in much of the development literature." don't you seem to understand? This is not authors claim this source indicates that it is widely recognized in much of development literature. I do not have the time or will, spoon feed you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Spoon feeding is strong language. I personally searched for journal articles on the ScienceDirect database and couldn't find a single one that classified or referred to Sri Lanka as an NIC. I don't doubt that there may be some out there, but I was surprised that an initial hunt for them was fruitless. This may require some effort from yourself as well. I'm sure Alex is not suggesting that we need 5 sources in order to justify Sri Lanka's listing, but rather that something widely recognized in much of the development literature should be readily available in that 5 sources should be able to be located with ease. We could find more sources by getting a better handle on what development economists are actively or primarily researching Sri Lanka, so we can cite some of their publications (ideally we should do this anyway for the sake of improving the article). John Shandy` • talk 05:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Saman Kelegama Economic policy in Sri Lanka: issues and debates p26 ISBN 9780761932789, Sri lanka has been a NIC for quiet sometime, It is one of the more more developed NIC's as indicated by the HDI rankings, ranking ahead of 4 of the other NIC's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That book does not describe Sri Lanka as a newly industrialized country, and certainly not on page 26. What it says on page 26 is this: After the economic reforms of 1977, the government took considerable efforts to develop Sri Lanka as a newly industrialized country based on science and technology (S&T). Despite all this, due to many reasons, the effort towards S&T development has not been very successful. It's discussing the agenda of developing Sri Lanka as an NIC, and does not indicate that Sri Lanka is considered one.

I did some more searching and in the UN Industrial Development Organization's (UNIDO) latest Industrial Development Report for 2009, I found that Sri Lanka is discussed and compared in a few data sets, but is not labeled as a newly industrializing country among others in the Asia/Asia-Pacific region: Hong Kong SAR, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, and Singapore. The report of course speaks about the exceptional standings of China and India. Sri Lanka is discussed as a developing country and the report notes Sri Lanka's significant loss in its competitive industrial performance (CIP) ranking from 2000 to 2005.

I've also been searching for other works that would describe Sri Lanka as an NIC or discuss its transition to an NIC, but have found little of anything to support this. I have found a number of things that talk about former presidents' goals of turning Sri Lanka into an NIC by 2000, but no literature discussing the end result. I found a 2009 paper presented at a Global Research Project Workshop on South Asian Country Studies by the South Asia Network of Economic Research Institutes (SANEI) which discusses gray areas in Sri Lanka's develop in the context of its economic growth and also macroeconomic and political problems. The study does not treat Sri Lanka as a newly industrialized country. It discusses that Sri Lanka's growth performance lagged behind its development expectations and mentions that Sri Lanka's development performance, despite its economic growth from 1950-2000, has been a source of controversy among researchers, and that such differing views of Sri Lanka's performance persist in the literature.

It seems to me that we will need very strong sourcing to list Sri Lanka among the most prominent NICs, if even at all. John Shandy` • talk 00:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New year btw. On exactly what page of the UNIDO does it give list of NIC's? Look at it from a logical POV, SL out ranks 4 of the other NIC's in terms of human development. Higher per capita income than most of the other NIC's. Literacy rates above 90%, life expectancy above 75 years and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The UNIDO report discusses a number of NICs on page 16 primarily; the report does not provide any exhaustive list of NICs labeled as such; however, it discusses NICs and it discusses Sri Lanka, but it does not describe the latter as being among the former. At any rate, the burden of proof is on the claimant making an assertive claim; in other words, it's not up to me to find sources that disprove anything (which I'm not trying to do anyway; I'm looking for supporting sources and finding very little of them). The Kelegama book you referred to does not support your suggestion that we list Sri Lanka. I hope you aren't expecting myself or Alex to do all of the work here; I put several hours into searching earlier today and have tried to be nothing short of open-minded and cooperative. Whether we list Sri Lanka as an NIC or not, we should find more sources so as to improve this article anyway.

With regards to looking at things from a logical point of view, your, Alex's, or my points of view don't matter on Wikipedia, no matter how logical they may be. Wikipedia's core content policies (particularly WP:NOR and WP:V in this case) require that articles characterize the available reliable sources on any given subject. Looking at numbers and discerning for ourselves (even logically and scientifically) that Sri Lanka is an NIC, doesn't cut it for characterizing it as an NIC in the article. We need corroborating secondary sources to make this connection with Sri Lanka's development indicators for us, and then we can reference such literature in the article. That's simply how an encyclopedia works; to deviate is to produce original research. Again, if Sri Lanka is indeed widely recognized as an NIC, we should have no problem finding journal articles, monographs, NGO/intergovernmental reports, possibly even textbooks that corroborate such a fact. Between yesterday evening and earlier today, I have thus far put 4 hours into non-stop searching (via Google, subscription databases, and even Amazon book previews) for literature that classifies Sri Lanka as an NIC. Thus far I have not been able to find anything which supports such a classification. John Shandy` • talk 04:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I will get some sources from my university library, for now, we can list the Brohman source. I tried to edit the references but I was confused with it. If we are take 5 sources for each NIC listing, there should be 50 references in the reference page. I can only see 4 sources for NIC's. The rest are just references to CIA world fact book, and others to verify the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, don't take Alex's mention of 5 sources to heart; there's no magic number needed for referencing something in any given article, but we have to take into account WP:UNDUE (a clause of WP:NPOV), and so we have to take the available reliable literature as a whole; Sri Lanka's classification as an NIC may be true in a few sources scattered about, but it may still be a minority viewpoint rather than a mainstream viewpoint. If so, we'll need to make that distinction to comply with what NPOV says about not giving undue weight to the view of Sri Lanka as an NIC. Alex just meant that 5 sources should have been easy to find (even if not needed), and quite frankly I haven't even been able to find even one so far.

As for editing the references, they work a little weird if you're not used to Wikipedia. Throughout the text, you insert reference information and then a template used in the References section aggregates all of those references and automatically generates an ordered list of them. So long as you provide reference information on the talk page, other editors can help you get them inserted into the article, otherwise this guide can help you learn how to do it: WP:Referencing for beginners John Shandy` • talk 18:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply John, So then are we happy to list Sri Lanka, in the Other' NIC's from the sources we currently have with us? If so please go ahead add it in and reference accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka is not widely considered a NIC, and from the lack of sources, it belongs to the category "other NICs" as I originally pointed out. That subsection was intended to include countries that are not widely considered to be a NIC, but still mentioned as such in a book or two. This is to comply with a WP rule called "undue weight". As John said, if Sri Lanka was considered a NIC, we wouldn't have had problems finding sources, plenty of them as the anonymous IP user suggests. Neither John nor I were able to find such sources.

So go ahead and add it to that section, not to the table. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you Do it, and reference accordingly. I dont know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would do it, but as John told you, he and I were unable to find a source that considers Sri Lanka as a NIC. The reference you gave doesn't mention anything about it being a NIC. Do you have other source? We really need it in order to include Sri Lanka. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you retarded?" :::It appears the source is good and does list Sri Lanka as an NIC in passing mention (see pg. 81 on Google Books). However, we really should use more than one reliable source; Brohman states that In addition, a number of other Asian countries (e.g., Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey) have recently been given the status of NICs in much of the development literature.;" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia strives for an environment of WP:Civility. If you cannot refrain from silly remarks like Are you retarded? as you made to Alex, then don't expect that people are going to be very cooperative with you. John Shandy` • talk 19:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Case by case evaluation need for each NIC listing

1. From the following source, David Waugh (3rd edition 2000). "Manufacturing industries (chapter 19), World development (chapter 22)". Geography, An Integrated Approach. Nelson Thornes Ltd.. pp. 563, 576–579, 633, and 640. ISBN 0-17-444706-X.

I am able to establish Brazil, Mexico and Argentina as NIC's.

2. From the following source, Paweł Bożyk (2006). "Newly Industrialized Countries". Globalization and the Transformation of Foreign Economic Policy. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 164. ISBN 0-75-464638-6.

I am able to establish as Frist generation NIC's “ south Korea, Taiwan, Hon kong, Singapore, Brazil and Mexico” as Second generation NIC's “Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Cyprus and Jordan.” as Third generation NIC's “india, Egypt, Argentina and chile.”

3. From the following source, http://www.photius.com/countries/japan/government/japan_government_newly_industrialized~447.html

I am able to establish South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, as NIC's

4. From the following Source, Mauro F. Guillén (2003). "Multinationals, Ideology, and Organized Labor". The Limits of Convergence. Princeton University Press. pp. 126 (Table 5.1). ISBN 0-69-111633-4

I am able to establish Argentina, South Korea, and Spain as NIC's

Each of the following countries are mention in the following sources.

Brazil - 2 cites (1, 2) Mexico - 2 cites (1, 2) Argentina - 3 cites (1, 2, 4) South Korea - 3 cites (2, 3,4)

So far I am happy to list Argentina and South Korea as NIC's given we can find two more sources for each of them. The others have 2 or less sources, unless new sources are put forward they should be promptly De-listed from the NIC table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

5. From the following Source, http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64165259&theSitePK=469372&piPK=64165421&menuPK=64166093&entityID=000009265_3970716142516

I think Indonesia classified as NICs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RidwanFadilArif (talk • contribs) 08:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

references

I have included the following tags to the article, Please DO NOT remove them until each one is solved here in the discussion.

This tag was included, as there non sufficient references in the article to establish a single NIC, until further sources are found and the above dispute is settled DO NOT remove this tag.

This tag was included, as references 13 (^ " France invites Egypt to join G14") and 15 (^ http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/georgesept62001.html) are broken. Please DO NOT remove this tag, until the broken references are fixed OR the cited text along with the references are removed.

This tag was included as certain references have been misinterpreted. Please DO NOT remove this tag, until the above dispute is settled.

I have removed some of the tags, because one single "broken" link doesn't merit a whole article to be tagged. There's an online tag to address single problems with broken links. Secondly, there are more than enough sources talking about what NICs are. This recent addition of multiple tags seems to be an attempt to demerit the article just because a single country couldn't make to the list of current NICS, due to the fact that no author consider it a NIC, and nobody could find a reliable source indicating this. In other words, a bad-faithed attempt to demerit the article because it doesn't fit a person POV. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Indonesia entered the NICs?

I think Indonesia is included NICS, as in this site Main report, East Asia and Pacific Economy "This study discusses the relationship between public policy and rapid economic growth. East Asia has a record of high and sustained economic growth during the last twenty-five years. Most of this growth occurred in eight economies - Japan, Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and the newly industrializing Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. The High Performing Asian Economies (HPAEs) use a variety of policies to achieve three functions of growth - accumulation, allocation, and productivity growth. They are diverse in natural resources, culture, and political institutions; and they differ in the degree of government intervention in the economy and the manner in which policies are shaped and implemented. The study attempts to explain East Asia's success and to develop a model of rapid growth with equity. It finds that the diversity of experience, the variety of institutions, and the variations in policies among the HPAEs does not allow a model to be developed. However, some lessons for other developing countries can be learned from the East Asian experience. First, it is essential to get the fundamentals right. High levels of domestic saving, broad based human capital, good macroeconomic management, and limited price distortions provide the basis for growth. Second, careful policy interventions to accelerate growth produces very rapid growth." — Preceding unsigned comment added by RidwanFadilArif (talk • contribs) 08:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources of Information/Citations

The article did a good job of remaining neutral when presenting information, and none of the claims appear biased.

However, when checking through the citations, I found a citation that only linked back to another Wikipedia article. Citation #13 "G8 Structure and Activities" contained a link to the Wikipedia article on the "Group of Eight." Another citation (#14 "France Invites Egypt to join G14") does not link to an article or source; it only links back to Yahoo's home page.

I found the article to give a concise description of what is a NIC, some historical background, current NICs, present issues, etc. The article stayed on topic, but there is room for expansion in the Historical Context section and Other NICs section.

Arijafari (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Source no. 17, cited in the "Criticisms of NICs" section when comparing China and India, is a Guardian article on wealth disparity in Africa, and does not mention any of the subject matter. The information may still be good, but the source is faulty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.174.130 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Uncoordinated with Statements of Value

The lead section is too long and contains a laundry list of the features of the term NIC. Currently, most of the items on that list lack a citation, which they desperately need because several of them are doubtful at best. The list is also a problem in that statements made later in the page contradict it. For instance, the claim that Russia is an NIC contradicts the claim that NICs are countries that recently switched from agricultural sectors to industrial economies. A fuzziness in the definition of what exactly an NIC is is present throughout the page.

The section "Current NICs" contains several superfluous statements, and gives the impression that the authors did not work together on writing the section. This impression is augmented by the way information in different parts contradicts each other. For example, there are multiple statements that introduce the G8+5 in this section.

The section "Brief economic analysis" is superfluous, containing only information that belongs either in a general description of the features of an NIC, or in the section that describes criticisms of NICs. The entire section lacks in line citations.

The section "Issues" is loaded with value statements and is in need of a thorough rebranding. Calling the section "Issues" immediately makes it seem as though the editors synthesized problems of NICs into a critique, rather than presenting criticisms in an unbiased manner. The statement about economic and political freedom in China is loaded with ethical assumptions about human rights. A different tone is needed in this section to express the problems that NICs must deal with.

Rdedwards95 (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The two sections of Brief Economic Analysis and Issues seems underdeveloped. While too many generalizations shouldn't be made about Newly Industrialized Countries, there is far more to be said about the economic state and short comings that applies to most if not all NICs. Furthermore the economic description that is there is more of a statement of economic phenomena than drawing on specific legislation/regulation in the NICs. Hma2217 (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is Cuba Light Green on the Map?

From my understanding Cuba has widespread recognition as a nation throughout the world. I'm not sure why it's listed as an unrecognized country on the first graphic.

Defining and better representing NIC

Would better defining what an NIC is compared to other developing countries better represent what NIC's are sicne I feel that the explanation in the first part of the article is a bit vague? As well I believe that there should be a section on how NIC's economic growth impacts the global market to better show what NIC are contributing to both developed and developing nations.

Maalikib (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Addition of Turkey to NIC table?

User Special:Contributions/24.36.172.58 recently added Turkey to table of NICs. Inclusion seems to be contradicted by the text that precedes the table. Since I am new to this article, I'm not going to edit, but suspect that this is a perennial issue. Flagging here for a better informed editor and for discussion if necessary.Federalist51 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Source for 2014 map

The map ([17]) certainly lends some color. However, BernardoTe (talk · contribs), I can't find anything about this in any 2014 article by the IMF - but the IMF published 754 items in 2014 so I imagine it's probably out there. Any help you could provide would be appreciated. Also pinged on Commons. II | (t - c) 20:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)