This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Heres a Question, if the index was developped in 1990, how was this Index Calculated from 1980 to 1990 ? Perhaps someone could explain it? Ghilz 19:36, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
Presumably because the index is just a collection of weighted figures, and these figures were available in previous year. I'd say that these years were calculated retrospectivly. X— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.239.93 ( talk) 04:42, 4 November 2004
QUESTION ON INDEX
Does the index measure for the distribution of income?
Such as Gini-coefficient, etc ?
I've already checked the UNDP website I can't find the HDI values for 1990-2003.
I have already found some years' values (1998,1999,2001,2002) but not all. Can someone please help me with this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamito ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 December 2004
Re: Locating HDI numbers
For the above and anyone else interested, there are numbers for the HDI going back until 1990, excluding 1991 and 1996 -- I have no idea why there are no numbers for those years. You can also get retroactively calculated numbers at five year intervals back until 1975 for many countries. The bad news is that you'll need to extract these numbers from the Human Development Global Reports, located on the UNHDR site.
These may be found here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.93.207 ( talk) 07:12, 2 February 2005
Erm... Nigeria is not a Latin American country (or am I reading it wrong?)
Can I ask what's wrong with having more than the top 30 and more than the bottom 10? If you want to keep it as a 'summary', and you don't want it to become a full listing, then surely it should be balanced out at something like top 20 and bottom 20? -- Baryonic Being 09:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Personally, I think it prudent to include only the top and bottom 10 countries; having an 'endless' list' detracts from what is an already concise article. Thus, I curtailed the top list present ... but: I created a complete list of countries, colour-coded map and legend. Whatyathink? Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 09:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
In the top 30 list, UK is listed at 12 and Ireland at 10, but in the top/bottom 3 lists by continent, the UK is listed in place of Ireland and indicated to be at position 8. One of these must be wrong, though I don't know which. (Actually looking at it now, I guess neither should be listed since either is actually in place 4 and should not be in a top 3 list)
The Human Development Index ( HDI) is a standard UN measure/ rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.
Thus, the following question is put to a vote:
Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The equation to get ADI on the page says " (ADR - 0)/(100 - 0) ". Are the zeroes not a bit redundant? Batmanand 07:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The zeros are there because the general formula used to make the index fit in the 0,1 range is Xindex=(X-MinX)/(MaxX-MinX), where X is the relevant characteristic, MinX is the minimum value X can take on, MaxX is the maximum value the variable can be (i.e. they can change over time). Same reason why that log(40000)-log(100) is there. radek 23:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
There's been some edits removing the zeros or rewriting the 85-25 as 60. I understand why - perhaps a note about how raw numbers are transformed into a (0,1) index should be put into the article. See my comment above. If there's no objections I will add it in. radek 23:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know how the Adult Literacy Rate is calculated for countries who's census does not track Adult Literacy, like the US?
Should we not insert a pro and cons or criticism section? Like why the index does not use the gini coefficient... I don't know much about it but that the kind of stuff I had liked to learn. PierreWiki 4:44, Oct 1, 2005 (UTC)
The comment that the statement about lacking sub-national data HDI is untrue is incorrect. For this to be untrue, the HDI would have to systematically include sub-national data elements every time. Doing it occasionally is not sufficient and therefore validates the original criticism. It's obvious that the comment was provided by someone linked to the UN who took offence to the comment. Dagobert | 18:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.78.226 ( talk)
May I ask why Chad is in the bottom ten twice? — Iggy Koopa 20:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
A graphic showing the huge disparities would be more informative than a ranking.
Out of the history of this article, I noticed that some editors would like to pay some attention to the distribution of the HDI values (how often do certain HDI values occur/how many countries have a higher/lower HDI value then…etc.). Textual it was ones included in the article as follows:
With a request to make a graph to ‘illustrate the point’, which could look like this:
Does any of this contribute something to this article, or maybe in List of countries by Human Development Index, or doesn’t it add much, and we should keep it out of the article? Any thoughts? -- Van helsing 09:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone provide an estimation of the Vatican City's HDI? -- Toytoy 08:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
What is link to the misleadingly named Freedom House, a US-based CIA joint dealing in propaganda and promotion of "US interests" doing on a page with a claim to any objectivity? What does Freedom House have to do with Human Development Index?
"The whole motive behind this index is to bash the U.S.A (only #12) and lift up countries with socialist/soacial democratic ideologies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.112.109.253 ( talk) 22:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Good for you that you know so precisely what the motive behind that list is. To me it looks like establishing which countries get it a little more right and others who get it a little more wrong. Not everything in this world is done to glorify or bash the USA. There are lots and lots of other aspects in this world! This list is a lot more useful than Forbes' rich list which is an insult to most of the world. Who needs to know how many billions xyz made last year? Donald Duck's uncle Dagobert would be the only one! 121.209.51.37 ( talk) 05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Uhh, no, that's just stupid. It's derived from a mathematial formula which meausures things that make perfect sense in figuring out the best places to live. You're jsut over-patriotic and paranoid.
Israel is an European country. It cannot be classified as Asia. If so, then someone needs to decide what continent israel is in... seriously... it can't be Europe, Africa and Asia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.102.142.220 ( talk • contribs) 23:00, June 25, 2006 (UTC)
The entry for Israel in the Africa top 3 is clearly a mistake. It should be Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (58) in that position. I don't know how to fix it properly as I'm new!
Obviously, that means there should be six asian countries listed, why do I see seven? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.102.166 ( talk • contribs) .
The version on spanish has the real ranking... the version here on english is raelly wrong. Argentina is listed 107, but on the document from the ONU Argentina is listed 34. Here Brasil 34, but Brasil is really 63!
Thanks. PS: I dont change it, because i dont know how... PS2: I've fixed it... Argentina is back on 34 and fixed the positions for Guyana y Bolivia, there were mixed.
It seems as if a lot of people are trying to change things in this article based on patriotic passions, rather than what the figures really are. Yes, it must be embarrassing to have a nation outside the top 30, but the facts are the facts. Perhaps rather than trying to insert point-of-view arguments, one should instead go and visit some of the top 30 nations to see why they really are in the top 30. Mattrix18 19:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Taiwan(ROC) may be taken into consideration of the top 30 countries, but we should'nt distrub the orgional fact of ranking ....Yaoyu
Yeah, and it looks like some Dane has chosen to move his country to 1st place, and move Norway down to 15th, I've fixed it though. I thought the Scandinavians all stuck together or at least thats what Eurovision taught me.
I was who fixed it before today, but it has benn changed wrongly again. So i registered for 1st time here on Wikipedia to help to provide correct data (sorry, my english isnt really good).
The index for Sudamerica is worng, the complete info is available at: http://hdr.undp.org/ and the Ranking at: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf
This is the real info: 34-Argentina 0.863 63-Brasil 0.792 107-Guyana 0.720 113-Bolivia 0.687
I hope you will correct this. pdrpdr 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
For the part about income the Wiki states that UNDP uses GNPpc ppp. I however remember that our lecturers told us they use GDPpc ppp and on UNDP sites they mention GDP as well. For instance in the footnote for Luxembourg's income per capita on this page. Besides that it says GDP in the text above as well.
the letest news is that
Can someone explain to me the GDP Index. I dont understand how to use it :S
What's to explain? You plug in a country's GDP per capita into the formula. It's just a standardization to transform a number that can range from 0 to infinity to an index that ranges from 0 to 1. radek 21:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh thanks that really helped. not. just give me an example of how to do it. like take one country's GDP per capita and show me an example
Umm, dude, if you want help then learn some manners. And it's not that hard. Figure it out yer own self. radek 02:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Uhh dude, im 13. not a straight A student in UNI!
Manners would still help.
Fine then. Can you please show me an example of how to use the GDP Index? I don't understand it.
The formula is much more complex than merely "plugging in a country's GDP" into an equation. In fact, numerous PhD theses have been written on this topic, and the formula has changed over the years. It is an all-encompassing metric, including quality of life, average life expectancy, productivity and more. Of course he would need help understanding it. Radeksz -Your rude demeanor and short temperament are why many people don't contribute to Wikipedia. To the 13 year old who was asking how to use this formula, you'll have to have someone explain it to you in-depth, not on a Wikipedia talk page. - Keenada ( talk) 21:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the YEAR to which this graphic refers, and has it been corrected following previous comments? The graph should have a caption indicating the year. --Mack2 12:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, this image is incompatible with red-green colorblindness. Consider using texture/pattern and colors of different luminance 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
edit soon?
http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/4150/ra1on6.jpg http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/4150/ra1on6.jpg http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/4150/ra1on6.jpg http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/4150/ra1on6.jpg
not yet released online, but in magazine form
As Slovakia is a member nation of prominence within the European Union, I find it strange that Slovakia is not on this index as well. In addition, the map designates Slovakia as a nation with medium HDI. However, if you looked at Slovakia's Policy Statement of the Government of the Slovak Republic (no direct linking allowed, search on Google, sorry), you would see that Slovakia doesn't have things such as human rights violations or poor people dying on the street due to malnutrition, etc etc. Therefore Slovakia should not be colored yellow on that map. Does anyone see this too? --neilthecellist 18:12, 8 November 2006
It would seem as though someone has spammed on this actual page, i will attempt to delete it Yakshavings
I believe there's a misunderstanding. I'm looking at the latest report right now and what you're adding doesn't agree with it at all.
[3] (pdf)
-- ran ( talk) 16:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, the latest figures for the Republic of China and for Macau SAR are from the year 2003. Please do not rank them together with the figures from 2004, which are given in this article.
Please don't lengthen the top-30 list any more, we have a List of countries by Human Development Index article that lists all of the countries.
Finally, please note that South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore are considered developed countries / territories. -- ran ( talk) 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you want to add the figures, please don't remove the arrows and rank changes.. -- ran ( talk) 19:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
69.236.xx.xx: Okay, this has got to be the fourth, fifth time I've asked you to come to here and discuss your changes. I don't agree with your changes and I've given my reasons, yet you refuse to discuss. Instead, you keep on reverting to your old version with no reasons given at all.
Please, come here and discuss. It's a crucial part of contributing to Wikipedia.
-- ran ( talk) 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't delete the comments of other people.
I've already put the points in for you. But don't remove the rankings. The List of Countries doesn't give ranking changes; this is the ONLY article where ranking changes are given. When you remove them, you are removing information from all of Wikipedia. -- ran ( talk) 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I know you've re-checked the UN figures, and I can see that you're not putting the wrong figures anymore. However, please also take note of my other points, including what I said about:
f you disagree with anything I said, please raise it here, don't just ignore my attempts to discuss. -- ran ( talk) 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
141.149.176.238 deleted the USA from the stats of top 3 & bottom 3 countries of North America. Minor, but it should be noted. --Sarah 23:15, 27 Jan 2007 (UTC)
There's an inconsistency in the top of countries with the lowest index by continent. Azerbaijan is listed as being in Europe, altough this map of Asia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LocationAsia.png (compare with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_location_AZN2.png) and what I remember from geography class clearly say it's not. (Sorry for the messy links, I don't know my way around editing wiki well enough yet). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.226.7.11 ( talk) 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
Hello, I've just finsished adding these nice tags to the article, (use of colour = good article) but do we actually need these lists? I'm sure there's something about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate publisher of data (whatever). After all, there is already an article dedicated to the rankings. Deepdreamer 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's part of the USA and covered by the census, no? Potatoswatter 03:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the US census typically treats puerto rico separately, And the UN does not collect data from Puerto Rico. I will research this. I believe it should be noted as one of the countries not represented in HDI. Mad05963 06:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the http://hdr.undp.org/ UN Development Program (UNDP) which is basically the official ranking body for HDI, Puerto Rico does not report statistics to it, and ranking/calculation of HDI is only done for special reports, see earthwatch UNEP http://islands.unep.ch/CSV.htm Also see UNEP Globalis http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/country.cfm?country=PR&indicatorid=0 notice the absence of Puerto Rico statistics. Looking at the census page (anyone else think the census website is confusing?) The census maintains separate statistics just for puerto rico and repeatedly notifies when the stats from Puerto Rico are included in a report or if they are not one example is this page of the US Census looking into the Hispanic Population, notice the disclaimer that it does not include information from Puerto Rico, only Hispanics in the United States. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic.html I'm not sure if any of this helps. Mad05963 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Puerto Rico is self governing since 1952. It is not a part of the US, it is a self governing nation in a free association with the US as an unincorporated commonwealth or free associated country. The US census does not include Puerto Rico in the US statistics because it is not annexated, it is not a part of the US. UN country code for Puerto Rico is 630 since 1953 [4] , UN page for PR [5] -- Royptorico 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of the 'top 30' table is wrong. For example, Switzerland is listed as top but is actually 9th. Seehttp://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/1.html Why? Nom DeGuerre 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we include Nagorno-karabakh in countries not included?
Why don't we use the colour-blind compliant map instead of the default one? I can't edit it unless I create an account 80.177.165.204 15:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
??
-- 81.26.0.21 11:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The article only lists the top 30 countries in the world. Poland's 37. To get the full ranking you have to clink on the provided link. radek 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what methodology is being used for the HDI (and the obscure mathematical formulas really don't shed much light on this issue). I do know that the rankings in this article make no sense if you read the article's own explanation for what the HDI is.
The article claims that HDI is based on factors such as life expectancy, adult literacy and a "decent" standard of living. And yet the U.S. supposedly ranks above such prosperous, affluent nations as Luxembourg, Austria, and Belgium.
WTF?
I'm not saying that Europe is a utopia by any means. But as far as factors like life expectancy and adult literacy, frankly, Europe leaves the U.S. in the dust. Most European secondary schools are vastly more demanding than U.S. schools. A lot of inner city U.S. schools these days are positively Third World. And as far as life expectancy goes, the U.S. ranks outside of the top 40, I believe. What's more, the U.S. has widespread extreme poverty of the sort that simply doesn't exist in Europe.
To be sure, poverty exists in Europe. But it is nothing like the bottom-of-the-barrel horrific poverty that is frighteningly widespread in the U.S. (although we Americans like to pretend it doesn't exist).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.124.8 ( talk) 03:48, 7 April 2007
If you're implying that the US is not one of the richest, nicest places in the world then you are sadly mistaken. Literacy rates are 95-100% in both the US and Europe. As the US is a huge country of 300 million, is very active, very involved in world affairs unlike others in the top places in the HDI, it's inevitable that it has more poverty, especially in some inner cities. However, it is also home to some of the richest and most educated places in the world.
Its universities/colleges, the most relevant form of education, are the best in the world and even on average are better than that of their European counterparts.
Life expectancies between most developed nations are so minimally different that the US ranking in the low 40s isn't much different from the countries you listed, which are mostly in the mid 20s.
Overall, it may be acceptable to say inaccurate (it's the UN making this study, after all) but laughably? No. Bloodloss 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
America's literacy rates are not 95-100% as you claim. A 5-year American research program costing 14 million dollars released in 1993 showed that about 50% of American adults are in the two lowest literacy groups earning less than $7363 US dollars a year, the poverty threshold back then. See the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy#United_States. Oranges91 08:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
What does earnings have to do with literacy? Literacy is if you cna read and write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.84.140 ( talk) 04:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
WAY WAY WAY WAY messed up table at the bottom on 2007 report. The UK and Israel are both include twice in current rankings. Canada isn't even on the list. The whole list is messed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.5.119 ( talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have restored direct placement of the colour-blind compliant maps. The original maps had no advantage over the colour-blind compliant maps, but had a significant drawback in that one in twelve white males could not read them. I will revert edits of anyone moving back to the original maps unless they give good reason here. An article about human development should not be used as a tool to discriminate against disability, race and gender. Traffic light colours are only useful if they are in sequence - red top, yellow middle, green bottom. On a map, any connection to the top/middle/bottom placement is lost and thus claims of the "universality" of traffic lights is irrelevent.
Andrew Oakley
20:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You can have your "colour blind compliant image" all you want, as long as it does not obfuscate the "Top thirty countries (HDI range from 0.965 down to 0.885)" list. Thanks to that handy work, Germany's position was blocked. -merrick79 28 May 2007
What do the green/red, up/down arrows mean? Same question for the number in parenthesis after the arrows. There should be a legend somewhere. User:musujyay 18:82 (UTC), April 23, 2007
Somebody should add the foreign language versions for the article, e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index. As the article is locked I can't do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.24.152( talk • contribs)
How about having a list of cities with their HDI? I think it would be important to compare development of the major cities compared to rest of the country (eg Panama city has an HDI of 0.937 while the country as a whole is at 0.809)
How can we have rankings going back to 1980 if the Human Development Index was started in 1990? Did they just decide to do rank countries for the previous ten years? I believe this needs some explanation. Thank you, ( 74.134.124.3 20:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
The predictions segment is poorly written and possibly inaccurate. Who wrote this segment and why is it part of the article? It seems ludicrous to try and predict the future when nations statuses can wax and wane. If this segment is necessary, I'll fix the language. - Keenada( talk) 21:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have erased it, made no sense at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.210.78 ( talk) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
That was me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poveda ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The trend looked that way.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 ( talk) 18:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Top 50 is only a way to confuse readers that some countries are developed when in reality they're not. ( kardrak 03:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC))
This user without any other argument than his own original research or will to include his own country as one of the top developed countries in the world is trolling around editing the article when since the beginning only a top 30 ranking have been decided. ( kardrak) 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I had to correct the list of the top 30 countries on HDI as Denmark was at the 13th spot and Spain at 14th. Actually is the other way round, Spain being slightly higher than DK on this index (even if the score is identical), as you can see at the UN site Here:[ [6]]
The rest of the list is absolutely right, thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.192.192 ( talk) 12:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone (anonymously) removed Hong Kong from the list and moved the nations in 22-30 up one place. I have reverted this, since it does not accord with List of countries by Human Development Index. While I agree Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, it does have sufficient autonomy that it has a significantly different HDI than the rest of China (which is down at 81st place with 0.777), and since the UN calculated it and placed Hong Kong 21st, I think it's only right that we report it as such. David McCormick ( talk) 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears someone vandalized the page and put freakin' 'Italic textNigeriain the top ten of the list. 68.126.206.194 ( talk)—Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 4 June 2008.
Since I last was here, Norway has crept above Iceland on the list on this page. But the List of countries by HDI list has Iceland still at the top. They have the same score - to three significant figures. But I presume Iceland had a higher number without the rounding and someone (Norwegian?) has changed this article on the sly to say that Norway is top. One article must be wrong. I didn't change it. If the Chinese spies are going to fiddle the results aswell (see entry above), then we need to request semi protection. -- 81.105.242.11 ( talk) 04:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
At the Methodology section, there is a style error. Under the GDP Index formula, there is some strange HTML text, like "! style="background: #efefef;" | Formula |- ! style="background: #ffdead;" | Longevity". Could someone please fix this? Thanks in advance!
Tvdm ( talk) 18:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Where'd we get those formulas. There not cited and they have mistakes like log(100)=2 Jimmy da tuna 00:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy da tuna ( talk• contribs)
The figures in this section and indeed the 2007/2008 do not match the Main list on List of countries by Human Development Index which appears to be more accurate. Can someone take a look at this please BritishWatcher ( talk) 22:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Ukraine has 0.786 [8], but on the map it is shown same colour as 0.800–0.849 . Same thing with Kazahstan: it is shown to have 0.750–0.799 , but in reality it has 0.807 [9]. DVoit 15:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The image of the HDI is not updated. Venezuela and Ecuador are listed as "High" in the HDI (61. Venezuela▲ 0.826 and 72. Ecuador▲ 0.807), so, these two countries should be coloured as green (high) instead of yellow (medium) in the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Link-GC ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The article's lead paragraphs disappoint me; they seem to lack objectivity. I wonder if the article might have a Neutral Point of View if it did not contain words like "claimed... vulgar measure... arbitrary weightings of a few aspects of social development". Is this an article explaining an index, a measure that uses quantitative data to provide comparisons or is it an article where some claim the measure is misleading and that the indications for a given tribe are underrated or overvalued?
My professional work over the past 40 years used many descriptive statistics, including units of comparison and indexes. Long ago, I learned a dull hoe was better than no hoe at all.
This article and those who commented on this talk page might be better off if selfish pride and tribalism were set aside in the interest of working to develop better tools to help us understand, define, and solve problems for the betterment of our fellows.
Namaste! //Don K. ( talk) 08:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
<quote> ...which usually also implies to determine whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country. </quote>
this seems questionable to me. as the UN statistics department mentiones, "There is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing" countries or areas in the United Nations system. In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania, and Europe are considered "developed" regions or areas. In international trade statistics, the Southern African Customs Union is also treated as a developed region and Israel as a developed country; countries emerging from the former Yugoslavia are treated as developing countries; and countries of eastern Europe and of the Commonwealth of Independent States (code 172) in Europe are not included under either developed or developing regions." http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm
The HDI scores thus do not serve as a distinction between developed, developing or underdeveloped country, imo, and as far as i can see, actually many of the countries usually regarded as developing countries (acc to the UN statistics devision) achieve HDI-scores in the range of "high" HD, e.g. costa rica, brasil, united arab emirates and many more. -> ???
-- Schlafwachstoerungen ( talk) 12:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Since that (above) phrase was repeated back to back, I changed "also" to "further" in the latter instance. -- Ihaveabutt ( talk) 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UT
The index measures health & education, & a country needs to be rich to achieve high scores in these areas. This suggests that per capita GDP doesnt matter for this or any similar index. The same argument applies to inequality of income: such inequality pulls down the average scores for health & education, so high scores in these areas imply that income inequality has no serious effect. It is possible for the effects of unequal incomes to be partly offset by heavy public spending in health & education, the so called social wage. -- DavidJErskine ( talk) 06:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) does the HDI. For example, see[ [10]]. Wakablogger2 ( talk) 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm so excited! Henjeng55155 ( talk) 04:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Regards, -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 00:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The changes shown here (for the 2009 report compared to the 2008 report) do not correspond with List of countries by Human Development Index. For example; last year, Iceland was ranked first, with Norway second. However, this article suggests that Norway's position hasn't changed, as shown with a ''. Hayden120 ( talk) 03:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have not checked the map exhaustively, but at least these countries need their colours to be updated:
-Belgium -Italy -New Zealand -Spain -Austria
Since 2009 they're "over 0.950" countries, so their colour should be the darkest green.
I don't have a clue about editing svg maps. Any volunteers? Cheers. -- 85.62.37.2 ( talk) 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
performed on Lede and methodology §. Prior text stated that it was an average which is both vague and apparently incorrect for the current UNDP definition. I didn't verify the detail formulae against the current standard definition. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
lol demonic country of imps 79.182.50.19 ( talk) had to say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.50.19 ( talk) 10:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Many administrative regions and states within large countries have their own HDI, and the world map would be more accurate if it reflected this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.86.199 ( talk) 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
83.147.147.254 ( talk) 05:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Economist Bryan Caplan has criticized the way scores in each of the three components are bounded between zero and one, so rich countries effectively cannot improve their ranking in certain categories, even though there is a lot of scope for economic growth and longevity left, "This effectively means that a country of immortals with infinite per-capita GDP would get a score of .666 (lower than South Africa and Tajikistan) if its population were illiterate and never went to school."[9] Scandinavian countries consistently come out top on the list, he argues, "because the HDI is basically a measure of how Scandinavian your country is."[9]
This guy is basically criticizing a judgement tool for _human development_ by saying that you can't get 1.000 for having super powers and infinite GDP at the expense of things that you know, are a large part of human development. Why is this included in the article? Is it just so people with brains can laugh at it? Oh HDI, full of such blatant Scandinavian biased measures like "being educated and knowing how to read."
If you can't do the "Math" then your likely from one of those super rich immortal countries you speak of. Glad I don't live there. 83.147.147.254 ( talk) 05:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
According to this article, Fiji was one of the countries not included in the Human Development Index of 2009. According to List of countries by Human Development Index, Fiji was indeed included, it came out at Number 108, just one place below Syria and one place above Turkmenistan. Surely this statement about Fiji needs to be deleted, as these two articles contradict each other. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
At some point today they'll be releasing the 2010 edition of the HDI report covering 2008. It'll include a new Multidimentional Poverty Index. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/ 134.39.27.36 ( talk) 17:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and now it uses a completely different metodology, which resulted in completely new values. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.112.64.228 ( talk) 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
What would they be with the old calculations? (Also the previous values have been retroactively edited.) Drgreen19 ( talk) 20:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was WONDERING why Norway was .20 lower than last year, and yet has a green arrow indicating improvment! Masternachos( talk) 00:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
UN has released a 2010 update, including a new method to calculate the HDI. A major update is needed... http://hdr.undp.org/en/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.79.47.238 ( talk) 18:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The map file: "2010 UN Human Development Report .png" is based on the official UNDP HDI 2010 map and does not uses an arbitrary distinction of countries based in any original research.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map/
kardrak 01:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kardrak ( talk • contribs)
Hello there. I believe this map:
> 0.784 (Very High) 0.677–0.784 (High) 0.488–0.676 (Medium) | < 0.488 (Low) no data |
is superior to this map:
Very High High Medium | Low data unavailable |
The blue to pink to red color scheme is very clear to understand in the first map. In the second map, however, the lowest category (low HDI) is nearly black, completely defeating visual perception and understanding. Both maps use the official categories used by the UNDP in its latest 2010 report to classify countries in very high, high, medium and low groups. What does everyone think? Which map serves the article best?
Pristino(
talk)
04:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I will replace the black with the lighter blue like in the formal map.
kardrak ( talk) 20:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Very High High Medium | Low data unavailable |
What do you think Eliko?
kardrak (
talk)
20:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, i will put this. kardrak ( talk) 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Blue map removed for following reasons:
Until the problems are resolved, I remove the map from the article.-- 90.177.208.162 ( talk) 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Heres a Question, if the index was developped in 1990, how was this Index Calculated from 1980 to 1990 ? Perhaps someone could explain it? Ghilz 19:36, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
Presumably because the index is just a collection of weighted figures, and these figures were available in previous year. I'd say that these years were calculated retrospectivly. X— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.239.93 ( talk) 04:42, 4 November 2004
QUESTION ON INDEX
Does the index measure for the distribution of income?
Such as Gini-coefficient, etc ?
I've already checked the UNDP website I can't find the HDI values for 1990-2003.
I have already found some years' values (1998,1999,2001,2002) but not all. Can someone please help me with this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamito ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 December 2004
Re: Locating HDI numbers
For the above and anyone else interested, there are numbers for the HDI going back until 1990, excluding 1991 and 1996 -- I have no idea why there are no numbers for those years. You can also get retroactively calculated numbers at five year intervals back until 1975 for many countries. The bad news is that you'll need to extract these numbers from the Human Development Global Reports, located on the UNHDR site.
These may be found here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.93.207 ( talk) 07:12, 2 February 2005
Erm... Nigeria is not a Latin American country (or am I reading it wrong?)
Can I ask what's wrong with having more than the top 30 and more than the bottom 10? If you want to keep it as a 'summary', and you don't want it to become a full listing, then surely it should be balanced out at something like top 20 and bottom 20? -- Baryonic Being 09:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Personally, I think it prudent to include only the top and bottom 10 countries; having an 'endless' list' detracts from what is an already concise article. Thus, I curtailed the top list present ... but: I created a complete list of countries, colour-coded map and legend. Whatyathink? Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 09:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
In the top 30 list, UK is listed at 12 and Ireland at 10, but in the top/bottom 3 lists by continent, the UK is listed in place of Ireland and indicated to be at position 8. One of these must be wrong, though I don't know which. (Actually looking at it now, I guess neither should be listed since either is actually in place 4 and should not be in a top 3 list)
The Human Development Index ( HDI) is a standard UN measure/ rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.
Thus, the following question is put to a vote:
Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The equation to get ADI on the page says " (ADR - 0)/(100 - 0) ". Are the zeroes not a bit redundant? Batmanand 07:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The zeros are there because the general formula used to make the index fit in the 0,1 range is Xindex=(X-MinX)/(MaxX-MinX), where X is the relevant characteristic, MinX is the minimum value X can take on, MaxX is the maximum value the variable can be (i.e. they can change over time). Same reason why that log(40000)-log(100) is there. radek 23:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
There's been some edits removing the zeros or rewriting the 85-25 as 60. I understand why - perhaps a note about how raw numbers are transformed into a (0,1) index should be put into the article. See my comment above. If there's no objections I will add it in. radek 23:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know how the Adult Literacy Rate is calculated for countries who's census does not track Adult Literacy, like the US?
Should we not insert a pro and cons or criticism section? Like why the index does not use the gini coefficient... I don't know much about it but that the kind of stuff I had liked to learn. PierreWiki 4:44, Oct 1, 2005 (UTC)
The comment that the statement about lacking sub-national data HDI is untrue is incorrect. For this to be untrue, the HDI would have to systematically include sub-national data elements every time. Doing it occasionally is not sufficient and therefore validates the original criticism. It's obvious that the comment was provided by someone linked to the UN who took offence to the comment. Dagobert | 18:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.78.226 ( talk)
May I ask why Chad is in the bottom ten twice? — Iggy Koopa 20:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
A graphic showing the huge disparities would be more informative than a ranking.
Out of the history of this article, I noticed that some editors would like to pay some attention to the distribution of the HDI values (how often do certain HDI values occur/how many countries have a higher/lower HDI value then…etc.). Textual it was ones included in the article as follows:
With a request to make a graph to ‘illustrate the point’, which could look like this:
Does any of this contribute something to this article, or maybe in List of countries by Human Development Index, or doesn’t it add much, and we should keep it out of the article? Any thoughts? -- Van helsing 09:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone provide an estimation of the Vatican City's HDI? -- Toytoy 08:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
What is link to the misleadingly named Freedom House, a US-based CIA joint dealing in propaganda and promotion of "US interests" doing on a page with a claim to any objectivity? What does Freedom House have to do with Human Development Index?
"The whole motive behind this index is to bash the U.S.A (only #12) and lift up countries with socialist/soacial democratic ideologies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.112.109.253 ( talk) 22:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Good for you that you know so precisely what the motive behind that list is. To me it looks like establishing which countries get it a little more right and others who get it a little more wrong. Not everything in this world is done to glorify or bash the USA. There are lots and lots of other aspects in this world! This list is a lot more useful than Forbes' rich list which is an insult to most of the world. Who needs to know how many billions xyz made last year? Donald Duck's uncle Dagobert would be the only one! 121.209.51.37 ( talk) 05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Uhh, no, that's just stupid. It's derived from a mathematial formula which meausures things that make perfect sense in figuring out the best places to live. You're jsut over-patriotic and paranoid.
Israel is an European country. It cannot be classified as Asia. If so, then someone needs to decide what continent israel is in... seriously... it can't be Europe, Africa and Asia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.102.142.220 ( talk • contribs) 23:00, June 25, 2006 (UTC)
The entry for Israel in the Africa top 3 is clearly a mistake. It should be Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (58) in that position. I don't know how to fix it properly as I'm new!
Obviously, that means there should be six asian countries listed, why do I see seven? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.102.166 ( talk • contribs) .
The version on spanish has the real ranking... the version here on english is raelly wrong. Argentina is listed 107, but on the document from the ONU Argentina is listed 34. Here Brasil 34, but Brasil is really 63!
Thanks. PS: I dont change it, because i dont know how... PS2: I've fixed it... Argentina is back on 34 and fixed the positions for Guyana y Bolivia, there were mixed.
It seems as if a lot of people are trying to change things in this article based on patriotic passions, rather than what the figures really are. Yes, it must be embarrassing to have a nation outside the top 30, but the facts are the facts. Perhaps rather than trying to insert point-of-view arguments, one should instead go and visit some of the top 30 nations to see why they really are in the top 30. Mattrix18 19:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Taiwan(ROC) may be taken into consideration of the top 30 countries, but we should'nt distrub the orgional fact of ranking ....Yaoyu
Yeah, and it looks like some Dane has chosen to move his country to 1st place, and move Norway down to 15th, I've fixed it though. I thought the Scandinavians all stuck together or at least thats what Eurovision taught me.
I was who fixed it before today, but it has benn changed wrongly again. So i registered for 1st time here on Wikipedia to help to provide correct data (sorry, my english isnt really good).
The index for Sudamerica is worng, the complete info is available at: http://hdr.undp.org/ and the Ranking at: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf
This is the real info: 34-Argentina 0.863 63-Brasil 0.792 107-Guyana 0.720 113-Bolivia 0.687
I hope you will correct this. pdrpdr 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
For the part about income the Wiki states that UNDP uses GNPpc ppp. I however remember that our lecturers told us they use GDPpc ppp and on UNDP sites they mention GDP as well. For instance in the footnote for Luxembourg's income per capita on this page. Besides that it says GDP in the text above as well.
the letest news is that
Can someone explain to me the GDP Index. I dont understand how to use it :S
What's to explain? You plug in a country's GDP per capita into the formula. It's just a standardization to transform a number that can range from 0 to infinity to an index that ranges from 0 to 1. radek 21:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh thanks that really helped. not. just give me an example of how to do it. like take one country's GDP per capita and show me an example
Umm, dude, if you want help then learn some manners. And it's not that hard. Figure it out yer own self. radek 02:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Uhh dude, im 13. not a straight A student in UNI!
Manners would still help.
Fine then. Can you please show me an example of how to use the GDP Index? I don't understand it.
The formula is much more complex than merely "plugging in a country's GDP" into an equation. In fact, numerous PhD theses have been written on this topic, and the formula has changed over the years. It is an all-encompassing metric, including quality of life, average life expectancy, productivity and more. Of course he would need help understanding it. Radeksz -Your rude demeanor and short temperament are why many people don't contribute to Wikipedia. To the 13 year old who was asking how to use this formula, you'll have to have someone explain it to you in-depth, not on a Wikipedia talk page. - Keenada ( talk) 21:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the YEAR to which this graphic refers, and has it been corrected following previous comments? The graph should have a caption indicating the year. --Mack2 12:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, this image is incompatible with red-green colorblindness. Consider using texture/pattern and colors of different luminance 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
edit soon?
http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/4150/ra1on6.jpg http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/4150/ra1on6.jpg http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/4150/ra1on6.jpg http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/4150/ra1on6.jpg
not yet released online, but in magazine form
As Slovakia is a member nation of prominence within the European Union, I find it strange that Slovakia is not on this index as well. In addition, the map designates Slovakia as a nation with medium HDI. However, if you looked at Slovakia's Policy Statement of the Government of the Slovak Republic (no direct linking allowed, search on Google, sorry), you would see that Slovakia doesn't have things such as human rights violations or poor people dying on the street due to malnutrition, etc etc. Therefore Slovakia should not be colored yellow on that map. Does anyone see this too? --neilthecellist 18:12, 8 November 2006
It would seem as though someone has spammed on this actual page, i will attempt to delete it Yakshavings
I believe there's a misunderstanding. I'm looking at the latest report right now and what you're adding doesn't agree with it at all.
[3] (pdf)
-- ran ( talk) 16:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, the latest figures for the Republic of China and for Macau SAR are from the year 2003. Please do not rank them together with the figures from 2004, which are given in this article.
Please don't lengthen the top-30 list any more, we have a List of countries by Human Development Index article that lists all of the countries.
Finally, please note that South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore are considered developed countries / territories. -- ran ( talk) 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you want to add the figures, please don't remove the arrows and rank changes.. -- ran ( talk) 19:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
69.236.xx.xx: Okay, this has got to be the fourth, fifth time I've asked you to come to here and discuss your changes. I don't agree with your changes and I've given my reasons, yet you refuse to discuss. Instead, you keep on reverting to your old version with no reasons given at all.
Please, come here and discuss. It's a crucial part of contributing to Wikipedia.
-- ran ( talk) 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't delete the comments of other people.
I've already put the points in for you. But don't remove the rankings. The List of Countries doesn't give ranking changes; this is the ONLY article where ranking changes are given. When you remove them, you are removing information from all of Wikipedia. -- ran ( talk) 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I know you've re-checked the UN figures, and I can see that you're not putting the wrong figures anymore. However, please also take note of my other points, including what I said about:
f you disagree with anything I said, please raise it here, don't just ignore my attempts to discuss. -- ran ( talk) 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
141.149.176.238 deleted the USA from the stats of top 3 & bottom 3 countries of North America. Minor, but it should be noted. --Sarah 23:15, 27 Jan 2007 (UTC)
There's an inconsistency in the top of countries with the lowest index by continent. Azerbaijan is listed as being in Europe, altough this map of Asia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LocationAsia.png (compare with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_location_AZN2.png) and what I remember from geography class clearly say it's not. (Sorry for the messy links, I don't know my way around editing wiki well enough yet). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.226.7.11 ( talk) 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
Hello, I've just finsished adding these nice tags to the article, (use of colour = good article) but do we actually need these lists? I'm sure there's something about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate publisher of data (whatever). After all, there is already an article dedicated to the rankings. Deepdreamer 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's part of the USA and covered by the census, no? Potatoswatter 03:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the US census typically treats puerto rico separately, And the UN does not collect data from Puerto Rico. I will research this. I believe it should be noted as one of the countries not represented in HDI. Mad05963 06:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the http://hdr.undp.org/ UN Development Program (UNDP) which is basically the official ranking body for HDI, Puerto Rico does not report statistics to it, and ranking/calculation of HDI is only done for special reports, see earthwatch UNEP http://islands.unep.ch/CSV.htm Also see UNEP Globalis http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/country.cfm?country=PR&indicatorid=0 notice the absence of Puerto Rico statistics. Looking at the census page (anyone else think the census website is confusing?) The census maintains separate statistics just for puerto rico and repeatedly notifies when the stats from Puerto Rico are included in a report or if they are not one example is this page of the US Census looking into the Hispanic Population, notice the disclaimer that it does not include information from Puerto Rico, only Hispanics in the United States. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic.html I'm not sure if any of this helps. Mad05963 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Puerto Rico is self governing since 1952. It is not a part of the US, it is a self governing nation in a free association with the US as an unincorporated commonwealth or free associated country. The US census does not include Puerto Rico in the US statistics because it is not annexated, it is not a part of the US. UN country code for Puerto Rico is 630 since 1953 [4] , UN page for PR [5] -- Royptorico 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of the 'top 30' table is wrong. For example, Switzerland is listed as top but is actually 9th. Seehttp://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/1.html Why? Nom DeGuerre 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we include Nagorno-karabakh in countries not included?
Why don't we use the colour-blind compliant map instead of the default one? I can't edit it unless I create an account 80.177.165.204 15:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
??
-- 81.26.0.21 11:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The article only lists the top 30 countries in the world. Poland's 37. To get the full ranking you have to clink on the provided link. radek 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what methodology is being used for the HDI (and the obscure mathematical formulas really don't shed much light on this issue). I do know that the rankings in this article make no sense if you read the article's own explanation for what the HDI is.
The article claims that HDI is based on factors such as life expectancy, adult literacy and a "decent" standard of living. And yet the U.S. supposedly ranks above such prosperous, affluent nations as Luxembourg, Austria, and Belgium.
WTF?
I'm not saying that Europe is a utopia by any means. But as far as factors like life expectancy and adult literacy, frankly, Europe leaves the U.S. in the dust. Most European secondary schools are vastly more demanding than U.S. schools. A lot of inner city U.S. schools these days are positively Third World. And as far as life expectancy goes, the U.S. ranks outside of the top 40, I believe. What's more, the U.S. has widespread extreme poverty of the sort that simply doesn't exist in Europe.
To be sure, poverty exists in Europe. But it is nothing like the bottom-of-the-barrel horrific poverty that is frighteningly widespread in the U.S. (although we Americans like to pretend it doesn't exist).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.124.8 ( talk) 03:48, 7 April 2007
If you're implying that the US is not one of the richest, nicest places in the world then you are sadly mistaken. Literacy rates are 95-100% in both the US and Europe. As the US is a huge country of 300 million, is very active, very involved in world affairs unlike others in the top places in the HDI, it's inevitable that it has more poverty, especially in some inner cities. However, it is also home to some of the richest and most educated places in the world.
Its universities/colleges, the most relevant form of education, are the best in the world and even on average are better than that of their European counterparts.
Life expectancies between most developed nations are so minimally different that the US ranking in the low 40s isn't much different from the countries you listed, which are mostly in the mid 20s.
Overall, it may be acceptable to say inaccurate (it's the UN making this study, after all) but laughably? No. Bloodloss 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
America's literacy rates are not 95-100% as you claim. A 5-year American research program costing 14 million dollars released in 1993 showed that about 50% of American adults are in the two lowest literacy groups earning less than $7363 US dollars a year, the poverty threshold back then. See the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy#United_States. Oranges91 08:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
What does earnings have to do with literacy? Literacy is if you cna read and write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.84.140 ( talk) 04:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
WAY WAY WAY WAY messed up table at the bottom on 2007 report. The UK and Israel are both include twice in current rankings. Canada isn't even on the list. The whole list is messed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.5.119 ( talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have restored direct placement of the colour-blind compliant maps. The original maps had no advantage over the colour-blind compliant maps, but had a significant drawback in that one in twelve white males could not read them. I will revert edits of anyone moving back to the original maps unless they give good reason here. An article about human development should not be used as a tool to discriminate against disability, race and gender. Traffic light colours are only useful if they are in sequence - red top, yellow middle, green bottom. On a map, any connection to the top/middle/bottom placement is lost and thus claims of the "universality" of traffic lights is irrelevent.
Andrew Oakley
20:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You can have your "colour blind compliant image" all you want, as long as it does not obfuscate the "Top thirty countries (HDI range from 0.965 down to 0.885)" list. Thanks to that handy work, Germany's position was blocked. -merrick79 28 May 2007
What do the green/red, up/down arrows mean? Same question for the number in parenthesis after the arrows. There should be a legend somewhere. User:musujyay 18:82 (UTC), April 23, 2007
Somebody should add the foreign language versions for the article, e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index. As the article is locked I can't do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.24.152( talk • contribs)
How about having a list of cities with their HDI? I think it would be important to compare development of the major cities compared to rest of the country (eg Panama city has an HDI of 0.937 while the country as a whole is at 0.809)
How can we have rankings going back to 1980 if the Human Development Index was started in 1990? Did they just decide to do rank countries for the previous ten years? I believe this needs some explanation. Thank you, ( 74.134.124.3 20:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
The predictions segment is poorly written and possibly inaccurate. Who wrote this segment and why is it part of the article? It seems ludicrous to try and predict the future when nations statuses can wax and wane. If this segment is necessary, I'll fix the language. - Keenada( talk) 21:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have erased it, made no sense at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.210.78 ( talk) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
That was me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poveda ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The trend looked that way.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 ( talk) 18:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Top 50 is only a way to confuse readers that some countries are developed when in reality they're not. ( kardrak 03:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC))
This user without any other argument than his own original research or will to include his own country as one of the top developed countries in the world is trolling around editing the article when since the beginning only a top 30 ranking have been decided. ( kardrak) 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I had to correct the list of the top 30 countries on HDI as Denmark was at the 13th spot and Spain at 14th. Actually is the other way round, Spain being slightly higher than DK on this index (even if the score is identical), as you can see at the UN site Here:[ [6]]
The rest of the list is absolutely right, thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.192.192 ( talk) 12:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone (anonymously) removed Hong Kong from the list and moved the nations in 22-30 up one place. I have reverted this, since it does not accord with List of countries by Human Development Index. While I agree Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, it does have sufficient autonomy that it has a significantly different HDI than the rest of China (which is down at 81st place with 0.777), and since the UN calculated it and placed Hong Kong 21st, I think it's only right that we report it as such. David McCormick ( talk) 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears someone vandalized the page and put freakin' 'Italic textNigeriain the top ten of the list. 68.126.206.194 ( talk)—Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 4 June 2008.
Since I last was here, Norway has crept above Iceland on the list on this page. But the List of countries by HDI list has Iceland still at the top. They have the same score - to three significant figures. But I presume Iceland had a higher number without the rounding and someone (Norwegian?) has changed this article on the sly to say that Norway is top. One article must be wrong. I didn't change it. If the Chinese spies are going to fiddle the results aswell (see entry above), then we need to request semi protection. -- 81.105.242.11 ( talk) 04:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
At the Methodology section, there is a style error. Under the GDP Index formula, there is some strange HTML text, like "! style="background: #efefef;" | Formula |- ! style="background: #ffdead;" | Longevity". Could someone please fix this? Thanks in advance!
Tvdm ( talk) 18:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Where'd we get those formulas. There not cited and they have mistakes like log(100)=2 Jimmy da tuna 00:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy da tuna ( talk• contribs)
The figures in this section and indeed the 2007/2008 do not match the Main list on List of countries by Human Development Index which appears to be more accurate. Can someone take a look at this please BritishWatcher ( talk) 22:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Ukraine has 0.786 [8], but on the map it is shown same colour as 0.800–0.849 . Same thing with Kazahstan: it is shown to have 0.750–0.799 , but in reality it has 0.807 [9]. DVoit 15:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The image of the HDI is not updated. Venezuela and Ecuador are listed as "High" in the HDI (61. Venezuela▲ 0.826 and 72. Ecuador▲ 0.807), so, these two countries should be coloured as green (high) instead of yellow (medium) in the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Link-GC ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The article's lead paragraphs disappoint me; they seem to lack objectivity. I wonder if the article might have a Neutral Point of View if it did not contain words like "claimed... vulgar measure... arbitrary weightings of a few aspects of social development". Is this an article explaining an index, a measure that uses quantitative data to provide comparisons or is it an article where some claim the measure is misleading and that the indications for a given tribe are underrated or overvalued?
My professional work over the past 40 years used many descriptive statistics, including units of comparison and indexes. Long ago, I learned a dull hoe was better than no hoe at all.
This article and those who commented on this talk page might be better off if selfish pride and tribalism were set aside in the interest of working to develop better tools to help us understand, define, and solve problems for the betterment of our fellows.
Namaste! //Don K. ( talk) 08:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
<quote> ...which usually also implies to determine whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country. </quote>
this seems questionable to me. as the UN statistics department mentiones, "There is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing" countries or areas in the United Nations system. In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania, and Europe are considered "developed" regions or areas. In international trade statistics, the Southern African Customs Union is also treated as a developed region and Israel as a developed country; countries emerging from the former Yugoslavia are treated as developing countries; and countries of eastern Europe and of the Commonwealth of Independent States (code 172) in Europe are not included under either developed or developing regions." http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm
The HDI scores thus do not serve as a distinction between developed, developing or underdeveloped country, imo, and as far as i can see, actually many of the countries usually regarded as developing countries (acc to the UN statistics devision) achieve HDI-scores in the range of "high" HD, e.g. costa rica, brasil, united arab emirates and many more. -> ???
-- Schlafwachstoerungen ( talk) 12:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Since that (above) phrase was repeated back to back, I changed "also" to "further" in the latter instance. -- Ihaveabutt ( talk) 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UT
The index measures health & education, & a country needs to be rich to achieve high scores in these areas. This suggests that per capita GDP doesnt matter for this or any similar index. The same argument applies to inequality of income: such inequality pulls down the average scores for health & education, so high scores in these areas imply that income inequality has no serious effect. It is possible for the effects of unequal incomes to be partly offset by heavy public spending in health & education, the so called social wage. -- DavidJErskine ( talk) 06:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) does the HDI. For example, see[ [10]]. Wakablogger2 ( talk) 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm so excited! Henjeng55155 ( talk) 04:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Regards, -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 00:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The changes shown here (for the 2009 report compared to the 2008 report) do not correspond with List of countries by Human Development Index. For example; last year, Iceland was ranked first, with Norway second. However, this article suggests that Norway's position hasn't changed, as shown with a ''. Hayden120 ( talk) 03:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have not checked the map exhaustively, but at least these countries need their colours to be updated:
-Belgium -Italy -New Zealand -Spain -Austria
Since 2009 they're "over 0.950" countries, so their colour should be the darkest green.
I don't have a clue about editing svg maps. Any volunteers? Cheers. -- 85.62.37.2 ( talk) 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
performed on Lede and methodology §. Prior text stated that it was an average which is both vague and apparently incorrect for the current UNDP definition. I didn't verify the detail formulae against the current standard definition. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
lol demonic country of imps 79.182.50.19 ( talk) had to say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.50.19 ( talk) 10:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Many administrative regions and states within large countries have their own HDI, and the world map would be more accurate if it reflected this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.86.199 ( talk) 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
83.147.147.254 ( talk) 05:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Economist Bryan Caplan has criticized the way scores in each of the three components are bounded between zero and one, so rich countries effectively cannot improve their ranking in certain categories, even though there is a lot of scope for economic growth and longevity left, "This effectively means that a country of immortals with infinite per-capita GDP would get a score of .666 (lower than South Africa and Tajikistan) if its population were illiterate and never went to school."[9] Scandinavian countries consistently come out top on the list, he argues, "because the HDI is basically a measure of how Scandinavian your country is."[9]
This guy is basically criticizing a judgement tool for _human development_ by saying that you can't get 1.000 for having super powers and infinite GDP at the expense of things that you know, are a large part of human development. Why is this included in the article? Is it just so people with brains can laugh at it? Oh HDI, full of such blatant Scandinavian biased measures like "being educated and knowing how to read."
If you can't do the "Math" then your likely from one of those super rich immortal countries you speak of. Glad I don't live there. 83.147.147.254 ( talk) 05:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
According to this article, Fiji was one of the countries not included in the Human Development Index of 2009. According to List of countries by Human Development Index, Fiji was indeed included, it came out at Number 108, just one place below Syria and one place above Turkmenistan. Surely this statement about Fiji needs to be deleted, as these two articles contradict each other. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
At some point today they'll be releasing the 2010 edition of the HDI report covering 2008. It'll include a new Multidimentional Poverty Index. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/ 134.39.27.36 ( talk) 17:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and now it uses a completely different metodology, which resulted in completely new values. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.112.64.228 ( talk) 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
What would they be with the old calculations? (Also the previous values have been retroactively edited.) Drgreen19 ( talk) 20:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was WONDERING why Norway was .20 lower than last year, and yet has a green arrow indicating improvment! Masternachos( talk) 00:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
UN has released a 2010 update, including a new method to calculate the HDI. A major update is needed... http://hdr.undp.org/en/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.79.47.238 ( talk) 18:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The map file: "2010 UN Human Development Report .png" is based on the official UNDP HDI 2010 map and does not uses an arbitrary distinction of countries based in any original research.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map/
kardrak 01:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kardrak ( talk • contribs)
Hello there. I believe this map:
> 0.784 (Very High) 0.677–0.784 (High) 0.488–0.676 (Medium) | < 0.488 (Low) no data |
is superior to this map:
Very High High Medium | Low data unavailable |
The blue to pink to red color scheme is very clear to understand in the first map. In the second map, however, the lowest category (low HDI) is nearly black, completely defeating visual perception and understanding. Both maps use the official categories used by the UNDP in its latest 2010 report to classify countries in very high, high, medium and low groups. What does everyone think? Which map serves the article best?
Pristino(
talk)
04:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I will replace the black with the lighter blue like in the formal map.
kardrak ( talk) 20:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Very High High Medium | Low data unavailable |
What do you think Eliko?
kardrak (
talk)
20:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, i will put this. kardrak ( talk) 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Blue map removed for following reasons:
Until the problems are resolved, I remove the map from the article.-- 90.177.208.162 ( talk) 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)