This page 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. |
The image of the HDI is not updated. Portugal are listed as "Hight" in the HDI (Portugal is 0.900), so, this country should be coloured with other green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.157.218.53 ( talk) 22:54, 2 January 2009 (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. Link-GC. 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Almost all of the ME countries boasting high HDI are on the list because of their high concentration (more than 60%) of extremely well educated expatriate work force who are in the prime of their life. That is a free ride at someone else's expense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.63.67 ( talk) 20:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The Republic of Serbia does not appear anywhere in the rank and neither in the list of not ranked countries. I think it should be in that second list, together with Montenegro. However, its page shows an HDI of 0.811. Something should be changed in both articles, but I'm not sure of how to proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asocall ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What's the point in listing the HDIs by "government type", when the government types listed are so specific that you have about 2 or 3 countries in each group?? It seems like a total waste of space to me... 124.183.115.231 08:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no EU listing here? Considering there is a listing for the EU on so many other country rankings, it should also be here. Is this because the EU would have a lower HDI than the United States (meanwhile it can boast of having a higher GDP and population on other articles)? Or is it something more innocuous, such as no Wikipedian has yet calculated what the HDI would be for the entire EU? Alternatively, the HDIs of American states could also be listed (as was done for Macau and Taiwan--and could be done for the EU). Several states are bound to have an HDI higher than .95. Chiss Boy 01:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the list, there are no nations under .300, but on the map there are some that correspond with the key as "Under .300". Perhaps it needs to be updated?
Colors dont coresponde !!!
0.909... eventhough it's not technically ranked we should list it the same way we do as Taiwan... JUST LOOK AT THE ARTICLE
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 country infobox/template:
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
EU average is 0,907 if it interests anyone. Alensha 18:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are they allowed to live? Anyone would mind if I remove them? / Grillo 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Re: this mass revert of my edits
"Countries – specifically, UN member states – fall into three broad categories based on their HDI" vs. "Countries—almost all the UN member states and a couple of special territories—fall into three broad categories based on their HDI"
Not all those on this list are UN member states: Hong Kong, Palestine, and the Vatican are not. There are member states that are not given HDI's.
"Taiwan" vs. "Republic of China|Taiwan, Province of China"
This is a UN list, so let's stick to UN terminology just like how an Olympic medalist list will use "Chinese Taipei". None of Wikipedia's lists have "Taiwan" on its own (it's usually some variation that mentions "Republic of China") because Kinmen and Matsu are part of Fujian, not Taiwan province (like Penghu), or part of Taiwan island (like Taipei and Kaohsiung). And im not the one enforcing these rules!
"For UN purposes, data for China does not include the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) (with a unique HDI entry), Macau (SAR), or Taiwan." vs. "The figure for "China" consists of only the data for mainland China and does not include Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan."
What do you mean by "for UN purposes"? This phrasing is imprecise and confusing. Is this true for everything the UN publishes? The answer to this question is not relevant here. We only need to state what is relevant, no more and no less. For those needing to consult this footnote at all, they are going to want to find out whether the data includes HK, MO, or TW, knowing that HK, MO, TW may or may not be included in the figure due to their political status. Whether these are SARs or renegade provinces is not really relevant, because for this note to be useful, we only need to know that these territories are "possibly or somewhat part of China". And why spell out "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" in full but leave "Taiwan, Province of China" abbreviated?
"The HDI report does not include data for " Taiwan, Province of China" (territories governed by the Republic of China), which the UN does not recognise." vs. "The HDI Report released by the UN does not include data for "Taiwan, Province of China" (the term used by the UN to refer to the territories governed by the Republic of China, which the UN does not recognize as a state)."
Please read the former option more closely. It is trying to assert that the UN does not recognize "Taiwan, Province of China". If the UN did not recognize it, then why did it bother stating in its report that it does not have a HDI for "Taiwan, Province of China"? What the UN does not recognize is the "Republic of China", not "Taiwan, Province of China". We want to be also clear here that "Taiwan, Province of China" is UN terminology and not Wikipedia terminology and that by "recognize" we mean "recognize as a state". In addition, please follow the MoS and use "ize" endings for UN-related topics: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling)#British_English_with_-ize_.28Oxford_spelling.29.
The see also section is redundant with Template:Lists of countries and is not needed.-- Jiang 12:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
If you look at every other list of countries in Wikipedia, you'll likely see Taiwan listed in some variation of "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Republic of China", "Taiwan (Republic of China)", "Republic of China on Taiwan", "Taiwan (ROC)" (I list all these variations because some users have been going around and changing these back and forth) and not "Taiwan" on its own. This is a longstanding convention, based partly on an interpretation of wikipedia:naming conventions (Chinese). That is, if we want to follow wikipedia convention, we would be inserting the name of a polity into a UN-issued list for which the UN itself would never recognize or acknowledge to exist. I'd rather we copy word for word what the UN calls the individual entries on the list (e.g. "Occupied Palestinian territories", etc) so there arent any inherent contradictions, but I don't really care that much. -- Jiang 04:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The link to " province of China" is not relevant here becuase the link leads to an article on a Chinese administrative division. Such a primary-level division subordinate to the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China does not exist over Taiwan, and the PRC does not claim that it exists. Our article states, "Theoretically, provinces are also the first level division of the Republic of China on Taiwan, though this role has been greatly diminished." Thus, the link in this context is highly misleading. The UN is using "Taiwan, Province of China" to refer to all territories administered by the ROC, which according to the definition of "province of China" includes four provinces/provincial level entities: Taiwan Province, Fujian Province, Taipei City, and Kaohsiung City. The PRC also recognizes Kinmen and Matsu, which are excluded from ISO 3166-2:TW because they are not part of "Taiwan, Province of China" because they are nominally part of Fujian province. But Kinmen and Matsu are not included in the figures for China, so when we speak of "Taiwan, Province of China", we dont really mean a real province with a provincial governor, people's government, etc. but diplomatic-speak to denigrate the status of the Republic of China. The actual term redirects to here, where it is explained. I really dont see the logic of linking to an irrelevant article.-- Jiang 04:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What is noted in the HDI report? The term "Province of China"? As I've stated before, our article on "Province of China" makes no mention of it being applied to the Republic of China government as a whole, but uses it in a way to mean a administrative division directly subordinate to the central government (whether this be the PRC or ROC). I'm not saying we cant call Taiwan a "province of China" - I'm saying that what our article on province of China has the term to mean is very different from what the UN has the term to mean. Can you explain how this is not true?
The country template (arguably, only entities that qualify for a countries template are even considered here) exists at Republic of China, not Taiwan. The HDI data is tied with the infobox in the countries template so the link should head there. We have either 1) wikipedia convention (some variation incorporating "Republic of China" or at least pipelinking it) or 2) UN convention (use of "Taiwan, Province of China"). It is best to lead readers to articles where they will find the relevant info the easiest - the easy to find population, area, GDP, etc. data are all stored at Republic of China. -- Jiang 05:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
China is noted in the report, but the UN means People's Republic of China, not "the Chinese civilization". This word "China" is relevant, the link is not.
The UN and Wikipedia have a very different set of naming conventions. What the UN calls "Taiwan, Province of China", Naming Conventions (Chinese) calls "Republic of China" or in some cases "Taiwan". Since wikipedia articles follow wikipedia naming conventions, the relevant information exists under the naming conventions-preferred names, not the UN names. It logically follows that we should use pipelinks. except you say we dont need to follow UN terms, but then you later say that we shouldnt even link to "Republic of China" (even if it's not visible as a pipelink) since the UN does not use that term. Now is that a contradiction?
If what wikipedia articles say is not your concern, then don't link to anything at all, lest you accidentaly link to a disambiguation page!-- Jiang 05:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The scope and definitions provided in the China article, or any other article in wikipedia, is arrived at through consensus. The consensus at Talk:China is that the article should be about the cultural and geographic entity (i.e. the civilization) and that information on specific polities (e.g. People's Republic of China) be given individual articles. Trying to link to China when you mean specifically the People's Republic of China or porcelain does not change this consensus and does not change the content in the China article, while creating confusion on the part of the reader who click on the link fully expecting some sort of country template. It is rather inconsistent to link to People's Republic of China in the list itself, but to link to China in the footnote. The figure in question is one and the same.
I really do not understand why we can allow Ireland to be pipelinked, but not China or Taiwan. If China were really a disambiguation page (like how some other language encyclopedias have done to the article), would you still be insisting that we link there, calling it a "UN-construct"?
Other things that I think need to be changed: The UN uses "Occupied Palestinian Territory" for the West Bank and Gaza, but instead of linking to the redirect to Palestinian territories, we link to an article on an administrative organization. What is especially jarring (for Greeks at least) in the current list is the listing of Macedonia on its own. If we want to avoid unnecessary politicizing or POV, we can just use UN names, and assign the POV to the UN. The problem will then be solved.-- Jiang 06:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If you see no problem in pipelinking Ireland, Macedonia, or Palestine (despite differing UN and international conventions), then I see no problem in pipelinking Taiwan.
The "China" in the list itself and in the footnote refer to the same thing and should point to the same link. Since PRC is linked to a couple words later in the same line in the footnote, the first link is not necessary.-- Jiang 08:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the report, Hong Kong, as listed in the table, is written as "Hong Kong, China (SAR)". ( PDF Google cache) — Insta ntnood 18:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This list needs to be updated, has the Un released a new report for 2005?-- Moosh88 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
How come there is an ad for france in the HDI box hmm? Propaganda if you ask me.
Macao is not on here but HK is. Either they should both not be there or both be there, because they are of equal stature as SARs. The Person Who Is Strange 20:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
from 2003 figures to 2006 – due out November 9th 2006.
I've made some edits to try to bring it close IMO to FL status.
Colin° Talk 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Is including a "Rank" column for the tables under the section heading "Not ranked" really necessary? Littleghostboo[ talk ] 07:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The HDI for Taiwan seems to be badly calculated. I've calculated it myself using the methodology used in the official report and it results in 0.912 NOT 0.910 as the National Statistics Institute of Taiwan says! I've calculated it in an Excel sheet and all other HDIs I've calculated match except this one. Try it! —☆ CieloEstrellado 07:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should rename this article as List of countries by 2004 Human Development Index etc, etc? __earth ( Talk) 10:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Zimbabwe does NOT rank LOW in the Human Development Index. Information stated here does not match what is on the country's page. At all!
Copied from my talk page. Please discuss Alex Bakharev 23:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Alex, I moved List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index to List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index,2006, Since this article includes data for year 2006, (also List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index, 2005 available.)
like as;
Main article;: List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index include the follovings; ---
etc. --- I need your urgent help. Regards Must TC 14:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this map is wrong. It shows Canada and Sweeden the darkest green, which would mean they are 9.5+, which they are both not. And if they are wrong, I am not sure how many else could be wrong...I think someone needs to fix it. Brainboy109 December 2nd 2006, 15:15 (UTC)
Also, no country scores below .300 except Somalia but somehow Niger and Sierra Leone and Mali are all colored in the map as being below .300 ArchonMeld 16:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
Feeling pretty stupid, but tried editing the page to remove the porn link but couldnt find the link anywhere after clicking the "edit" link on the notes section. Someone please remove the link at the end of the notes section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.182.15.55 ( talk) 03:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
It cannot be possible that Germany has a lower development index than Spain, even when taking into account the lesser developed new Bundesländer in the East of the country. -- Arado 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
[2] (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.
-- ran ( talk) 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested as to why Puerto Rico is referred to as a "Country." Shouldn't another word be more appropriate? Thanks.翔太 「Shouta:talk」 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Puerto Rico is self governing since 1952 and has country code 630 in the UN since 1953 (UN resolution- 748 VIII) [3]. -- Royptorico 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
puerto rico is a US territory if you like it or not. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.109.248.134 (
talk) 19:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
And the HDI of the World? It's possible to know it? 81.33.126.225 14:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the previous rant, this is more constructive. Anyway, what about - rather than just stating whether the country increased or decreased it's rating from previous data, how about saying what the quantity was in that change?
Norway 0.965 (+2)
instead of
Norway 0.965
It could be helpful to alot of people, and it certainly would have been helpful to me at least . . . I didn't want to change the structure of the list without someones approval, I will argue my case! Deepdreamer 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This also applies to the tags I added to the Regions and Groups column. Deepdreamer 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Another point, I don't see why people should have to explore a website just to find some simple data. Deepdreamer 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC) This does not mean I want to revive the 2005 data article. Deepdreamer 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't have time to do the whole page in one go, but I've started. Deepdreamer 14:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 18:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the previous years list? __earth ( Talk) 03:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Nominated for speedy deletion, and the vote was in favour, I will post a link to the HD reports site, so people can find the previous information if they want it. Deepdreamer 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, just follow the link and you'll find what you're looking for in the indicators section of each report. Deepdreamer 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's obvious some of the countries have ranked up or down from previous data. We could add some tags in the rank column. Deepdreamer 17:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried working backward. Switzerland and belgium shared spot 9 and there must be at least another snafu down the list past 17.
4 lux 5 can 6 swe 7 8 ire 9 swi bel 10 usa 11 jap 12 neth 13 14 den 15 uk 16 fra 17 aus
Potatoswatter 07:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The computed averages for NAFTA and EU are irrelevant since they are not weighted with respect to the populations. I have corrected it for NAFTA using the most recent data on populations found on Wikipedia (weighted average is 0.917 vs naïve average 0.906). It will be a lot more work computing the weighted average for EU, though. I'll try to fix this as soon as possible! // Jens Persson ( 213.67.64.22 14:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC))
"Country","Population","HDI", " Germany",82422299,"0,932","=B2*C2" " France",63392140,"0,942","=B3*C3" " United Kingdom",60209500,"0,940","=B4*C4" " Italy",58751711,"0,940","=B5*C5" " Spain",45061274,"0,938","=B6*C6" " Poland",38132277,"0,862","=B7*C7" " Romania",22329977,"0,805","=B8*C8" " Netherlands",16407491,"0,947","=B9*C9" " Greece",11244118,"0,921","=B10*C10" " Portugal",10605870,"0,904","=B11*C11" " Belgium",10445852,"0,945","=B12*C12" " Czech Republic",10287189,"0,885","=B13*C13" " Hungary",10076000,"0,869","=B14*C14" " Sweden",9047752,"0,951","=B15*C15" " Austria",8206524,"0,944","=B16*C16" " Bulgaria",7761000,"0,816","=B17*C17" " Denmark",5447084,"0,943","=B18*C18" " Slovakia",5431363,"0,856","=B19*C19" " Finland",5261008,"0,947","=B20*C20" " Ireland",4234925,"0,956","=B21*C21" " Lithuania",3596617,"0,857","=B22*C22" " Latvia",2290237,"0,845","=B23*C23" " Slovenia",2011070,"0,910","=B24*C24" " Estonia",1332893,"0,858","=B25*C25" " Cyprus",818200,"0,903","=B26*C26" " Luxembourg",468571,"0,945","=B27*C27" " Malta",402668,"0,875","=B28*C28" ,,, ,"Weighted average",,"=SUM(D2:D28) / SUM(B2:B28)"
I'm pretty sure Argentina's HDI is 0.863, while Mexico's is 0.821, can someone confirm this??? There's no way Mexico's above Argentina... and the other 10,000 times I've looked at this article, Argentina's been higher
In a mathematical point of view, every average can be calculated in two ways: directly, and indirectly, and both ways lead to the same result.
For example: If I calculate EU's HDI, then I can do that both directly and indirectly: The direct way involves the figures of: the whole quantity of population in the EU, the whole GDP in the EU, the life expectancy in the EU, the school enrollment in the EU, and the adult illiteracy in the EU. However, the indirect way involves two indicators only: every EU member's HDI, and every EU memeber's population, thus receiving the same EU's average HDI as was received before in the direct way. This is simple mathematics, and can be proved mathematically in trivial ways.
Eliko 13:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
While a weighted average would work for the life expectancy and education indices, it will fail to work with the GDP index because of its use of the logarithm of the per capita value. The logarithm of the mean per capita value is not the same as the population weighted average of the logarithm of the individual per capita values. Furthermore, even a calculation based on the the mean GDP per capita value is going to be slightly off since not all countries in the EU calculate their GDP using a single currency (yet), although the IMF publishes GDP data for the EU as a whole. In any case, a calculation using weighted individual HDI values is not accurate. -- Polaron | Talk 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
HDI was estimated to be 0.922 in 2003 - by Cambridge University Encyclopedia, Vol. 25, in the article "European Union" (you can easily find "Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 25" in Google if you add the quotation marks). If Cambridge University is not reliable then I suggest to replace the figure 0.922 by the tag {n/a} as was suggested also by Eliko. Manstorius 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I find it disturbing that some of the numbers are calculated by Wikipedians instead of by the United Nations. I say we stick with the official numbers and dump the rest, per WP:OR. __earth ( Talk) 08:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Where are the figures in the Unavailable data section from?
The HDI box for the countries in the High category is all wrong. The arrows for the countries in the Medium and Low categories represent the change in HDI but the arrows (and bracketed numbers) listed for the countries in the High category represent the change in rank. Many of the listed countries' HDI increased, yet the box seems to imply they remained the same or fell. MaesterTonberry 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone put Cubas human development the same as Mexico and several other countries. Trust me people I'm Cuban and have been to Cuba. Cuba is no better than Haiti. Please someone change this. The streets are crap, people have nothing to eat, the hospitals look like jails.
It's difficult to see the differences between countries in the world map. I know there's a color blind map, but it has more than two color variations. Can someone remade the map using blue and red as color variations? Blue for highest development and red for lowest? Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 00:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Should Svalbard really be considered part of Norway on the map?
I'm not sure where the data gets grouped in (if there is any at all). Can somebody more knowledgeable comment on this? -- Orang55 09:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! — Nightstallion 11:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
We need the 2007 list of HDI, does anyone have it? If so please add it and remove this 2004 list. 2008 is coming soon!!!! the list is almost 4 years old!!!
Muzammil01 15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool, I guess it must be hard to get the 2007 est all so quickly! so I will be looking forward to the 2005 list. November is soon.
Thank You Eliko Muzammil01 14:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I also think that the CIA World factbook should have estimated countries by HDI, because there would be much of a difference! Saudi Arabia's would be higher than the United Arab Emirates. I'm struggling who to stick with, CIA Wworld fact book or United Nations? CIA World factbook says Saudi Arabia's population is 27,601,29 and the UN says 24,000,000? who shall I beleive. Also CIA says Saudi Arabia's Life expectancy is 75.88 and the UN says 72? but then again the UN estimates for Saudi Arabia are lower than the CIA world factbook. The CIA world factbook ranks higher in Saudi Arabia than the UN, Who is more accurates? cia or UN. But I agree with CIA more.
Thanks Muzammil01 15:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Is Canada's HDI moving up or down? On the main list, it's going down, on the regional list, it's going up. 142.103.207.10 23:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC).
The country Croatia appears twice on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.44.134 ( talk) 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Zimbabwe isn't listed anywhere! If anyone finds Zimbabwe, let me know :-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.18.205 ( talk) 15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it affects it's change in relation to the last ranking, but with a score of .953, USA should be in the 10 spot ahead of France and Finland. Johnbiggs ( talk) 21:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the english Wikipedia, not the french one. So, just as the french speakers don't say "United States" - but "Etats-Unit", the english speakers (including the BBC etc.) don't say "Cote d'Ivoire" - but prefer: "Ivory Coast". Furthermore: The english name is the original one! It was changed into French by the Ivorian government who wants the french name to be used universally by all people in the world, but the english speakers (incl. the BBC etc.) still prefer: "Ivory Coast". Ostiferia ( talk) 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be a compound figure for the EU entry included. The rationale for the inclusion is based on the following arguments:
Lear 21 ( talk) 01:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The article shows the changes in rank but isn't change in the actual standard of living more important? The H-Man2 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Should we add English-language translations after Côte d'Ivoire and Timor-Leste in the list of nations? These names are the designations used by the United Nations, and are used in that form in the primary source document for this article. Several other list articles such as United Nations member states simply list the nation names as shown. It has been suggested for this article that we also present an English language translation, such as "Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast)" and "Timor-Leste (East Timor)". — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the term used by the UNDP for the country, per WP:MOSMAC. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· ( talk) 12:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't seem to find what is meant by the numbers next to the arrows giving the changes. For example, Iceland is up by 1, does that mean its HDI has increased by 0.001, 0.01, or 0.1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.217.99 ( talk) 12:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Iceland's rank is up by 1, and was ranked the first - in 2005. That means Iceland was ranked the second in 2004. Eliko ( talk) 20:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't find Russia in List of countries by Continents, not in Europe and not in Asia. Where is it? Monthstay ( talk) 18:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the OECD' index is reported in the article to have fallen wrt 2004 data, even though most (all?) of its members's HDIs went up. I would guess they just went and compared the value from the 2007-2008 report with the one from the 2006 report, but UNDP advices against directly comparing data from different reports, since the methodology is bound to change from one version to another. Kamom3 ( talk) 17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have not been involved with the name use dispute (discussed at length above) and personally I could care less. What I do care about is the "Disputed" tag was used incorrectly here and I have removed it. The use of the tag indicates that the information given - specifically the country's placement in the rankings - is in dispute. Clearly this can't be the case as all the other rankings appear to be correct. Therefore I assume the tag was added to continue the issue regarding what name to use for the country. Feel free to continue arguing that one (preferably on the country article's talk page) but using the disputed tag creates an error in interpretation of this featured list. If by some chance the tag was legitimately added by someone who feels the ranking of the country is incorrect, then I invite the person to state their case here. 23skidoo ( talk) 23:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Australia's HDI is listed completely incorrectly... its around 96 and one rank above Canada not 94 and quite below the UK and above Barbados!!! http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_aus.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.62.112 ( talk) 12:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
THE HDI FOR AUSTRALIA AND LUXEMBOURG HAS BEEN SWITCHED!!! CHECK PORTUGUESE ARTICLE... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.62.112 ( talk) 12:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be Asia and Oceania, both alone? Both are separate continents, why should they be together? Shouldn't EU be listed, but as a supernation, due to the conjoining of nations in Europe? Can there be reasons listed for the increase and decrease in the rankings also? These are critical in know what to correct in each country for this article. Albertgenii12 ( talk) 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Somebody could refresh this page whit the new report? http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by MucosoPucoso ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I am just working on it. But I'd need somebody to update the map. Tony0106 ( talk) 02:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the ranking according to the 2008 update found here, for the value and changes you must go to this page and download the Indicators Table HDI 2008. The map also needs to be updated because it's showing information from like the 2004 survey. I don't know how to edit it and I don't have the program even though I really want it (if somebody please can help me find it) so I can't edit it myself. Anyways I hope somebody else does it. Thanks. Tony0106 ( talk) 05:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
So after I spent about an hour updating the rank table yesterday. I saw several inaccurate changes on it. First they are putting ties, for example Iceland and Norway sharing the 1st place, this list doesn't include ties because they use six decimal points even though they only show us three so its actually Iceland in the first place alone. Australia and Canada didn't switch places according to the 2005 survey both countries are still 4th and 3rd respectively. Turkey's place was switched with Iran's. So please managers protect this page so that only users can actually edit it. Thanks. Tony0106 ( talk) 19:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The figures the main article Human Development Index do not seem to match the figures on this page. There are some major differences even for last years report. BritishWatcher ( talk) 22:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I spent over 2 hours updating everything. I put the links like 10 times in the talk page and in the article page and you keep on changing it. You destroyed all my work and that is VANDALISM. Tony0106 ( talk) 09:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
I rebuilt the tables from scratch using the original reports: 2007/2008 (for 2005 data only / released in November, 2007) and 2008 Statistical Update (for 2006 data only / released in December 2008). ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Maybe I'm not looking at the list well enough, but looking at the revision history of this article, it looks like 213.100.68.170 has been vandalizing the list. Whatever the case, it looks like the Wikipedia list is different from the actual list ( http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/), e.g. the actual list shows Mozambique, not the Democratic Republic of Congo, at 175th position, and does not show Somalia at all. Looking through the history, it seems 213.100.68.170 did a lot of this, on 2 January 2009 and also 4 January 2009. If I've somehow got the wrong end of the stick then then I'm sorry for wasting your time, but if I'm right then I suggest that his edits get reverted, and also that from now on this page gets protected against vandalism. And will someone please archive some of this discussion page! Matthew Fennell ( talk) 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this article should be semi-protected. There have been numerous edits, citing, for example, the United Kingdom as the #1 rated country. This must be stopped. This is an important article, which draws clearly from [4]. Thank you. - Jondude11 ( talk) 06:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Continuing the discussion from the above section, which is marked as "Resolved" but I don't think it is. I looked at the cited reports, but I could not find where it lists changes in rank, could someone point me to the source for the changes in rank between 2006 and 2005 data? If the Changes in Rank columns of the table aren't published by the official report or another reliable source, then that would be Original Research, would it not? (To User:CieloEstrellado who noted in the above section that Wikipedia isn't reporting the revised data, but rather the data originally published in the reports, but that isn't so. The original reports published HDI values and ranks for that report based on 2005 data; while the article as I currently see it, reports not the published HDI values of 2005, but rather the rank changes which were not published. This means that the Wikipedia editor conducted original research when that editor did a comparison between two different reports.) Second, if the rank changes are indeed published and it is simply that I did not find it, then why are the originally published figures used instead of the revised and corrected figures that are consistent with the present (2006 data) report? It's simply illogical to compare the two if the original report calculated its G-values based on a different GDPpc (PPP) rate than the one used for the present report (as this was noted by the latest report, which furthers my suspicion that the changes in rank column could not have been published by the UNDP and is simply something added by Wikipedia editors). Lastly, would it not be much more useful to report the change in HDI of the reported nation rather than comparing changes in rank? Changes in rank could be affected by a host of other factors that are none of the reported nation's developmental concern, and beyond the control and jurisdiction of the reported nation (e.g., another nation grew at a faster rate than the reported nation, a war-torn nation's HDI plummets while sending the reported nation's rank up). While changes in a nation's HDI value (something I did find published in the official report) reflect actual human developmental trends of that nation, which is of greater concern to the general reader. Frankly, the changes in rank column make this table seem like an international competition between nations, when in fact, it is the trend within nations over the years that is of greater concern (i.e., intranational "competition" with previous HDI values rather than international "competition" between nations' ranks). Concluding, I think that the changes in rank column should be removed and replaced by the officially published changes in HDI values as reported in the latest official report. If I understand correctly, similar to User:Tony0106's proposal in the aforementioned section, with the Changes in Rank column replaced by Changes in HDI values. Thanks for reading! -- Shibo77 ( talk) 14:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
change the HDI of brazil now! ranking 58
Ok. I see this is going by previous year's.
201.27.183.98 has put Brazil as #1. Suggest reverting article and preventing 201.27.183.98 from editing the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.84.17 ( talk) 07:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Could these countries under this section be included in the list if they have a HDI measurement although from a different source? Also, Afghanistan's HDI is .0229 according to http://www.answers.com/topic/afghanistan which would put the country at the bottom of the list . 96.226.133.76 ( talk) 20:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Anon
I'd agree so. 71.170.30.237 ( talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Anon
The 0.781 number is from a Chinese report that may be found at http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/nationalreports/asiathepacific/china/China_2008_en.pdf. However, the report states in a footnote on page 11: "In November 2007, the World Bank’s International Comparisons Project released a revised PPP-based exchange rate, which gives lower US dollar estimates of Chinese income data, and therefore leads to higher US $1 per day poverty incidence. As the exact impact on poverty calculations of the new PPP numbers is not yet clear, this report uses the earlier numbers." In that case, that Chinese report used unadjusted (incorrect) GDP per capita numbers (as well as outdated life expectancy and education statistics, I might add). We should go by the UN report, which uses the adjusted (correct) GDP per capita numbers. Henjeng55155 ( talk) 20:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
we are in May
Isnt this so-called "update" of HDI ranks a hoax? I don't find it on UNDP's site and the given link doesn't work. M.M.S. ( talk) 10:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the dark green and black are very similar in color, and it is VERY difficult to tell these two apart, even though they are opposite ends of the spectrum... couldn't another color be used for either end of that scale? 205.250.64.235 ( talk) 03:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
If you go to each individual country chances are the HDI listed there and the position on the list is different to the one here. One of the two articles need to be fixed, or both. 66.57.44.247 ( talk) 06:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
United Kingdom's HDI is 0.942 yet when you go to the articles of its individual parts (England, Wales, Scotland, Northen Ireland) the numbers listed there are a lot lower. I know the gini coefficient is not related but there is some noticeable bias in individual articles about it: in poorer countries with a bad gini coefficient, there is a red or yellow indicator next to the number. However in richer, more popular countries with a bad gini (for example the U.S.), there is no colored indicator at all. What qualifies a gini as a "high" or "low"? Is there a threshold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.44.247 ( talk) 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Every bank need help of customers care please. Let us plan for there 105.112.224.216 ( talk) 12:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This page 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. |
The image of the HDI is not updated. Portugal are listed as "Hight" in the HDI (Portugal is 0.900), so, this country should be coloured with other green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.157.218.53 ( talk) 22:54, 2 January 2009 (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. Link-GC. 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Almost all of the ME countries boasting high HDI are on the list because of their high concentration (more than 60%) of extremely well educated expatriate work force who are in the prime of their life. That is a free ride at someone else's expense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.63.67 ( talk) 20:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The Republic of Serbia does not appear anywhere in the rank and neither in the list of not ranked countries. I think it should be in that second list, together with Montenegro. However, its page shows an HDI of 0.811. Something should be changed in both articles, but I'm not sure of how to proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asocall ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What's the point in listing the HDIs by "government type", when the government types listed are so specific that you have about 2 or 3 countries in each group?? It seems like a total waste of space to me... 124.183.115.231 08:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no EU listing here? Considering there is a listing for the EU on so many other country rankings, it should also be here. Is this because the EU would have a lower HDI than the United States (meanwhile it can boast of having a higher GDP and population on other articles)? Or is it something more innocuous, such as no Wikipedian has yet calculated what the HDI would be for the entire EU? Alternatively, the HDIs of American states could also be listed (as was done for Macau and Taiwan--and could be done for the EU). Several states are bound to have an HDI higher than .95. Chiss Boy 01:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the list, there are no nations under .300, but on the map there are some that correspond with the key as "Under .300". Perhaps it needs to be updated?
Colors dont coresponde !!!
0.909... eventhough it's not technically ranked we should list it the same way we do as Taiwan... JUST LOOK AT THE ARTICLE
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 country infobox/template:
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
EU average is 0,907 if it interests anyone. Alensha 18:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are they allowed to live? Anyone would mind if I remove them? / Grillo 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Re: this mass revert of my edits
"Countries – specifically, UN member states – fall into three broad categories based on their HDI" vs. "Countries—almost all the UN member states and a couple of special territories—fall into three broad categories based on their HDI"
Not all those on this list are UN member states: Hong Kong, Palestine, and the Vatican are not. There are member states that are not given HDI's.
"Taiwan" vs. "Republic of China|Taiwan, Province of China"
This is a UN list, so let's stick to UN terminology just like how an Olympic medalist list will use "Chinese Taipei". None of Wikipedia's lists have "Taiwan" on its own (it's usually some variation that mentions "Republic of China") because Kinmen and Matsu are part of Fujian, not Taiwan province (like Penghu), or part of Taiwan island (like Taipei and Kaohsiung). And im not the one enforcing these rules!
"For UN purposes, data for China does not include the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) (with a unique HDI entry), Macau (SAR), or Taiwan." vs. "The figure for "China" consists of only the data for mainland China and does not include Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan."
What do you mean by "for UN purposes"? This phrasing is imprecise and confusing. Is this true for everything the UN publishes? The answer to this question is not relevant here. We only need to state what is relevant, no more and no less. For those needing to consult this footnote at all, they are going to want to find out whether the data includes HK, MO, or TW, knowing that HK, MO, TW may or may not be included in the figure due to their political status. Whether these are SARs or renegade provinces is not really relevant, because for this note to be useful, we only need to know that these territories are "possibly or somewhat part of China". And why spell out "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" in full but leave "Taiwan, Province of China" abbreviated?
"The HDI report does not include data for " Taiwan, Province of China" (territories governed by the Republic of China), which the UN does not recognise." vs. "The HDI Report released by the UN does not include data for "Taiwan, Province of China" (the term used by the UN to refer to the territories governed by the Republic of China, which the UN does not recognize as a state)."
Please read the former option more closely. It is trying to assert that the UN does not recognize "Taiwan, Province of China". If the UN did not recognize it, then why did it bother stating in its report that it does not have a HDI for "Taiwan, Province of China"? What the UN does not recognize is the "Republic of China", not "Taiwan, Province of China". We want to be also clear here that "Taiwan, Province of China" is UN terminology and not Wikipedia terminology and that by "recognize" we mean "recognize as a state". In addition, please follow the MoS and use "ize" endings for UN-related topics: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling)#British_English_with_-ize_.28Oxford_spelling.29.
The see also section is redundant with Template:Lists of countries and is not needed.-- Jiang 12:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
If you look at every other list of countries in Wikipedia, you'll likely see Taiwan listed in some variation of "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Republic of China", "Taiwan (Republic of China)", "Republic of China on Taiwan", "Taiwan (ROC)" (I list all these variations because some users have been going around and changing these back and forth) and not "Taiwan" on its own. This is a longstanding convention, based partly on an interpretation of wikipedia:naming conventions (Chinese). That is, if we want to follow wikipedia convention, we would be inserting the name of a polity into a UN-issued list for which the UN itself would never recognize or acknowledge to exist. I'd rather we copy word for word what the UN calls the individual entries on the list (e.g. "Occupied Palestinian territories", etc) so there arent any inherent contradictions, but I don't really care that much. -- Jiang 04:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The link to " province of China" is not relevant here becuase the link leads to an article on a Chinese administrative division. Such a primary-level division subordinate to the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China does not exist over Taiwan, and the PRC does not claim that it exists. Our article states, "Theoretically, provinces are also the first level division of the Republic of China on Taiwan, though this role has been greatly diminished." Thus, the link in this context is highly misleading. The UN is using "Taiwan, Province of China" to refer to all territories administered by the ROC, which according to the definition of "province of China" includes four provinces/provincial level entities: Taiwan Province, Fujian Province, Taipei City, and Kaohsiung City. The PRC also recognizes Kinmen and Matsu, which are excluded from ISO 3166-2:TW because they are not part of "Taiwan, Province of China" because they are nominally part of Fujian province. But Kinmen and Matsu are not included in the figures for China, so when we speak of "Taiwan, Province of China", we dont really mean a real province with a provincial governor, people's government, etc. but diplomatic-speak to denigrate the status of the Republic of China. The actual term redirects to here, where it is explained. I really dont see the logic of linking to an irrelevant article.-- Jiang 04:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What is noted in the HDI report? The term "Province of China"? As I've stated before, our article on "Province of China" makes no mention of it being applied to the Republic of China government as a whole, but uses it in a way to mean a administrative division directly subordinate to the central government (whether this be the PRC or ROC). I'm not saying we cant call Taiwan a "province of China" - I'm saying that what our article on province of China has the term to mean is very different from what the UN has the term to mean. Can you explain how this is not true?
The country template (arguably, only entities that qualify for a countries template are even considered here) exists at Republic of China, not Taiwan. The HDI data is tied with the infobox in the countries template so the link should head there. We have either 1) wikipedia convention (some variation incorporating "Republic of China" or at least pipelinking it) or 2) UN convention (use of "Taiwan, Province of China"). It is best to lead readers to articles where they will find the relevant info the easiest - the easy to find population, area, GDP, etc. data are all stored at Republic of China. -- Jiang 05:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
China is noted in the report, but the UN means People's Republic of China, not "the Chinese civilization". This word "China" is relevant, the link is not.
The UN and Wikipedia have a very different set of naming conventions. What the UN calls "Taiwan, Province of China", Naming Conventions (Chinese) calls "Republic of China" or in some cases "Taiwan". Since wikipedia articles follow wikipedia naming conventions, the relevant information exists under the naming conventions-preferred names, not the UN names. It logically follows that we should use pipelinks. except you say we dont need to follow UN terms, but then you later say that we shouldnt even link to "Republic of China" (even if it's not visible as a pipelink) since the UN does not use that term. Now is that a contradiction?
If what wikipedia articles say is not your concern, then don't link to anything at all, lest you accidentaly link to a disambiguation page!-- Jiang 05:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The scope and definitions provided in the China article, or any other article in wikipedia, is arrived at through consensus. The consensus at Talk:China is that the article should be about the cultural and geographic entity (i.e. the civilization) and that information on specific polities (e.g. People's Republic of China) be given individual articles. Trying to link to China when you mean specifically the People's Republic of China or porcelain does not change this consensus and does not change the content in the China article, while creating confusion on the part of the reader who click on the link fully expecting some sort of country template. It is rather inconsistent to link to People's Republic of China in the list itself, but to link to China in the footnote. The figure in question is one and the same.
I really do not understand why we can allow Ireland to be pipelinked, but not China or Taiwan. If China were really a disambiguation page (like how some other language encyclopedias have done to the article), would you still be insisting that we link there, calling it a "UN-construct"?
Other things that I think need to be changed: The UN uses "Occupied Palestinian Territory" for the West Bank and Gaza, but instead of linking to the redirect to Palestinian territories, we link to an article on an administrative organization. What is especially jarring (for Greeks at least) in the current list is the listing of Macedonia on its own. If we want to avoid unnecessary politicizing or POV, we can just use UN names, and assign the POV to the UN. The problem will then be solved.-- Jiang 06:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If you see no problem in pipelinking Ireland, Macedonia, or Palestine (despite differing UN and international conventions), then I see no problem in pipelinking Taiwan.
The "China" in the list itself and in the footnote refer to the same thing and should point to the same link. Since PRC is linked to a couple words later in the same line in the footnote, the first link is not necessary.-- Jiang 08:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the report, Hong Kong, as listed in the table, is written as "Hong Kong, China (SAR)". ( PDF Google cache) — Insta ntnood 18:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This list needs to be updated, has the Un released a new report for 2005?-- Moosh88 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
How come there is an ad for france in the HDI box hmm? Propaganda if you ask me.
Macao is not on here but HK is. Either they should both not be there or both be there, because they are of equal stature as SARs. The Person Who Is Strange 20:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
from 2003 figures to 2006 – due out November 9th 2006.
I've made some edits to try to bring it close IMO to FL status.
Colin° Talk 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Is including a "Rank" column for the tables under the section heading "Not ranked" really necessary? Littleghostboo[ talk ] 07:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The HDI for Taiwan seems to be badly calculated. I've calculated it myself using the methodology used in the official report and it results in 0.912 NOT 0.910 as the National Statistics Institute of Taiwan says! I've calculated it in an Excel sheet and all other HDIs I've calculated match except this one. Try it! —☆ CieloEstrellado 07:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should rename this article as List of countries by 2004 Human Development Index etc, etc? __earth ( Talk) 10:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Zimbabwe does NOT rank LOW in the Human Development Index. Information stated here does not match what is on the country's page. At all!
Copied from my talk page. Please discuss Alex Bakharev 23:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Alex, I moved List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index to List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index,2006, Since this article includes data for year 2006, (also List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index, 2005 available.)
like as;
Main article;: List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index include the follovings; ---
etc. --- I need your urgent help. Regards Must TC 14:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this map is wrong. It shows Canada and Sweeden the darkest green, which would mean they are 9.5+, which they are both not. And if they are wrong, I am not sure how many else could be wrong...I think someone needs to fix it. Brainboy109 December 2nd 2006, 15:15 (UTC)
Also, no country scores below .300 except Somalia but somehow Niger and Sierra Leone and Mali are all colored in the map as being below .300 ArchonMeld 16:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
Feeling pretty stupid, but tried editing the page to remove the porn link but couldnt find the link anywhere after clicking the "edit" link on the notes section. Someone please remove the link at the end of the notes section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.182.15.55 ( talk) 03:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
It cannot be possible that Germany has a lower development index than Spain, even when taking into account the lesser developed new Bundesländer in the East of the country. -- Arado 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
[2] (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.
-- ran ( talk) 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested as to why Puerto Rico is referred to as a "Country." Shouldn't another word be more appropriate? Thanks.翔太 「Shouta:talk」 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Puerto Rico is self governing since 1952 and has country code 630 in the UN since 1953 (UN resolution- 748 VIII) [3]. -- Royptorico 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
puerto rico is a US territory if you like it or not. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.109.248.134 (
talk) 19:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
And the HDI of the World? It's possible to know it? 81.33.126.225 14:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the previous rant, this is more constructive. Anyway, what about - rather than just stating whether the country increased or decreased it's rating from previous data, how about saying what the quantity was in that change?
Norway 0.965 (+2)
instead of
Norway 0.965
It could be helpful to alot of people, and it certainly would have been helpful to me at least . . . I didn't want to change the structure of the list without someones approval, I will argue my case! Deepdreamer 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This also applies to the tags I added to the Regions and Groups column. Deepdreamer 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Another point, I don't see why people should have to explore a website just to find some simple data. Deepdreamer 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC) This does not mean I want to revive the 2005 data article. Deepdreamer 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't have time to do the whole page in one go, but I've started. Deepdreamer 14:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 18:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the previous years list? __earth ( Talk) 03:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Nominated for speedy deletion, and the vote was in favour, I will post a link to the HD reports site, so people can find the previous information if they want it. Deepdreamer 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, just follow the link and you'll find what you're looking for in the indicators section of each report. Deepdreamer 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's obvious some of the countries have ranked up or down from previous data. We could add some tags in the rank column. Deepdreamer 17:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried working backward. Switzerland and belgium shared spot 9 and there must be at least another snafu down the list past 17.
4 lux 5 can 6 swe 7 8 ire 9 swi bel 10 usa 11 jap 12 neth 13 14 den 15 uk 16 fra 17 aus
Potatoswatter 07:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The computed averages for NAFTA and EU are irrelevant since they are not weighted with respect to the populations. I have corrected it for NAFTA using the most recent data on populations found on Wikipedia (weighted average is 0.917 vs naïve average 0.906). It will be a lot more work computing the weighted average for EU, though. I'll try to fix this as soon as possible! // Jens Persson ( 213.67.64.22 14:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC))
"Country","Population","HDI", " Germany",82422299,"0,932","=B2*C2" " France",63392140,"0,942","=B3*C3" " United Kingdom",60209500,"0,940","=B4*C4" " Italy",58751711,"0,940","=B5*C5" " Spain",45061274,"0,938","=B6*C6" " Poland",38132277,"0,862","=B7*C7" " Romania",22329977,"0,805","=B8*C8" " Netherlands",16407491,"0,947","=B9*C9" " Greece",11244118,"0,921","=B10*C10" " Portugal",10605870,"0,904","=B11*C11" " Belgium",10445852,"0,945","=B12*C12" " Czech Republic",10287189,"0,885","=B13*C13" " Hungary",10076000,"0,869","=B14*C14" " Sweden",9047752,"0,951","=B15*C15" " Austria",8206524,"0,944","=B16*C16" " Bulgaria",7761000,"0,816","=B17*C17" " Denmark",5447084,"0,943","=B18*C18" " Slovakia",5431363,"0,856","=B19*C19" " Finland",5261008,"0,947","=B20*C20" " Ireland",4234925,"0,956","=B21*C21" " Lithuania",3596617,"0,857","=B22*C22" " Latvia",2290237,"0,845","=B23*C23" " Slovenia",2011070,"0,910","=B24*C24" " Estonia",1332893,"0,858","=B25*C25" " Cyprus",818200,"0,903","=B26*C26" " Luxembourg",468571,"0,945","=B27*C27" " Malta",402668,"0,875","=B28*C28" ,,, ,"Weighted average",,"=SUM(D2:D28) / SUM(B2:B28)"
I'm pretty sure Argentina's HDI is 0.863, while Mexico's is 0.821, can someone confirm this??? There's no way Mexico's above Argentina... and the other 10,000 times I've looked at this article, Argentina's been higher
In a mathematical point of view, every average can be calculated in two ways: directly, and indirectly, and both ways lead to the same result.
For example: If I calculate EU's HDI, then I can do that both directly and indirectly: The direct way involves the figures of: the whole quantity of population in the EU, the whole GDP in the EU, the life expectancy in the EU, the school enrollment in the EU, and the adult illiteracy in the EU. However, the indirect way involves two indicators only: every EU member's HDI, and every EU memeber's population, thus receiving the same EU's average HDI as was received before in the direct way. This is simple mathematics, and can be proved mathematically in trivial ways.
Eliko 13:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
While a weighted average would work for the life expectancy and education indices, it will fail to work with the GDP index because of its use of the logarithm of the per capita value. The logarithm of the mean per capita value is not the same as the population weighted average of the logarithm of the individual per capita values. Furthermore, even a calculation based on the the mean GDP per capita value is going to be slightly off since not all countries in the EU calculate their GDP using a single currency (yet), although the IMF publishes GDP data for the EU as a whole. In any case, a calculation using weighted individual HDI values is not accurate. -- Polaron | Talk 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
HDI was estimated to be 0.922 in 2003 - by Cambridge University Encyclopedia, Vol. 25, in the article "European Union" (you can easily find "Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 25" in Google if you add the quotation marks). If Cambridge University is not reliable then I suggest to replace the figure 0.922 by the tag {n/a} as was suggested also by Eliko. Manstorius 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I find it disturbing that some of the numbers are calculated by Wikipedians instead of by the United Nations. I say we stick with the official numbers and dump the rest, per WP:OR. __earth ( Talk) 08:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Where are the figures in the Unavailable data section from?
The HDI box for the countries in the High category is all wrong. The arrows for the countries in the Medium and Low categories represent the change in HDI but the arrows (and bracketed numbers) listed for the countries in the High category represent the change in rank. Many of the listed countries' HDI increased, yet the box seems to imply they remained the same or fell. MaesterTonberry 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone put Cubas human development the same as Mexico and several other countries. Trust me people I'm Cuban and have been to Cuba. Cuba is no better than Haiti. Please someone change this. The streets are crap, people have nothing to eat, the hospitals look like jails.
It's difficult to see the differences between countries in the world map. I know there's a color blind map, but it has more than two color variations. Can someone remade the map using blue and red as color variations? Blue for highest development and red for lowest? Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 00:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Should Svalbard really be considered part of Norway on the map?
I'm not sure where the data gets grouped in (if there is any at all). Can somebody more knowledgeable comment on this? -- Orang55 09:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! — Nightstallion 11:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
We need the 2007 list of HDI, does anyone have it? If so please add it and remove this 2004 list. 2008 is coming soon!!!! the list is almost 4 years old!!!
Muzammil01 15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool, I guess it must be hard to get the 2007 est all so quickly! so I will be looking forward to the 2005 list. November is soon.
Thank You Eliko Muzammil01 14:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I also think that the CIA World factbook should have estimated countries by HDI, because there would be much of a difference! Saudi Arabia's would be higher than the United Arab Emirates. I'm struggling who to stick with, CIA Wworld fact book or United Nations? CIA World factbook says Saudi Arabia's population is 27,601,29 and the UN says 24,000,000? who shall I beleive. Also CIA says Saudi Arabia's Life expectancy is 75.88 and the UN says 72? but then again the UN estimates for Saudi Arabia are lower than the CIA world factbook. The CIA world factbook ranks higher in Saudi Arabia than the UN, Who is more accurates? cia or UN. But I agree with CIA more.
Thanks Muzammil01 15:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Is Canada's HDI moving up or down? On the main list, it's going down, on the regional list, it's going up. 142.103.207.10 23:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC).
The country Croatia appears twice on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.44.134 ( talk) 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Zimbabwe isn't listed anywhere! If anyone finds Zimbabwe, let me know :-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.18.205 ( talk) 15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it affects it's change in relation to the last ranking, but with a score of .953, USA should be in the 10 spot ahead of France and Finland. Johnbiggs ( talk) 21:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the english Wikipedia, not the french one. So, just as the french speakers don't say "United States" - but "Etats-Unit", the english speakers (including the BBC etc.) don't say "Cote d'Ivoire" - but prefer: "Ivory Coast". Furthermore: The english name is the original one! It was changed into French by the Ivorian government who wants the french name to be used universally by all people in the world, but the english speakers (incl. the BBC etc.) still prefer: "Ivory Coast". Ostiferia ( talk) 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be a compound figure for the EU entry included. The rationale for the inclusion is based on the following arguments:
Lear 21 ( talk) 01:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The article shows the changes in rank but isn't change in the actual standard of living more important? The H-Man2 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Should we add English-language translations after Côte d'Ivoire and Timor-Leste in the list of nations? These names are the designations used by the United Nations, and are used in that form in the primary source document for this article. Several other list articles such as United Nations member states simply list the nation names as shown. It has been suggested for this article that we also present an English language translation, such as "Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast)" and "Timor-Leste (East Timor)". — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the term used by the UNDP for the country, per WP:MOSMAC. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· ( talk) 12:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't seem to find what is meant by the numbers next to the arrows giving the changes. For example, Iceland is up by 1, does that mean its HDI has increased by 0.001, 0.01, or 0.1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.217.99 ( talk) 12:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Iceland's rank is up by 1, and was ranked the first - in 2005. That means Iceland was ranked the second in 2004. Eliko ( talk) 20:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't find Russia in List of countries by Continents, not in Europe and not in Asia. Where is it? Monthstay ( talk) 18:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the OECD' index is reported in the article to have fallen wrt 2004 data, even though most (all?) of its members's HDIs went up. I would guess they just went and compared the value from the 2007-2008 report with the one from the 2006 report, but UNDP advices against directly comparing data from different reports, since the methodology is bound to change from one version to another. Kamom3 ( talk) 17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have not been involved with the name use dispute (discussed at length above) and personally I could care less. What I do care about is the "Disputed" tag was used incorrectly here and I have removed it. The use of the tag indicates that the information given - specifically the country's placement in the rankings - is in dispute. Clearly this can't be the case as all the other rankings appear to be correct. Therefore I assume the tag was added to continue the issue regarding what name to use for the country. Feel free to continue arguing that one (preferably on the country article's talk page) but using the disputed tag creates an error in interpretation of this featured list. If by some chance the tag was legitimately added by someone who feels the ranking of the country is incorrect, then I invite the person to state their case here. 23skidoo ( talk) 23:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Australia's HDI is listed completely incorrectly... its around 96 and one rank above Canada not 94 and quite below the UK and above Barbados!!! http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_aus.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.62.112 ( talk) 12:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
THE HDI FOR AUSTRALIA AND LUXEMBOURG HAS BEEN SWITCHED!!! CHECK PORTUGUESE ARTICLE... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.62.112 ( talk) 12:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be Asia and Oceania, both alone? Both are separate continents, why should they be together? Shouldn't EU be listed, but as a supernation, due to the conjoining of nations in Europe? Can there be reasons listed for the increase and decrease in the rankings also? These are critical in know what to correct in each country for this article. Albertgenii12 ( talk) 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Somebody could refresh this page whit the new report? http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by MucosoPucoso ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I am just working on it. But I'd need somebody to update the map. Tony0106 ( talk) 02:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the ranking according to the 2008 update found here, for the value and changes you must go to this page and download the Indicators Table HDI 2008. The map also needs to be updated because it's showing information from like the 2004 survey. I don't know how to edit it and I don't have the program even though I really want it (if somebody please can help me find it) so I can't edit it myself. Anyways I hope somebody else does it. Thanks. Tony0106 ( talk) 05:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
So after I spent about an hour updating the rank table yesterday. I saw several inaccurate changes on it. First they are putting ties, for example Iceland and Norway sharing the 1st place, this list doesn't include ties because they use six decimal points even though they only show us three so its actually Iceland in the first place alone. Australia and Canada didn't switch places according to the 2005 survey both countries are still 4th and 3rd respectively. Turkey's place was switched with Iran's. So please managers protect this page so that only users can actually edit it. Thanks. Tony0106 ( talk) 19:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The figures the main article Human Development Index do not seem to match the figures on this page. There are some major differences even for last years report. BritishWatcher ( talk) 22:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I spent over 2 hours updating everything. I put the links like 10 times in the talk page and in the article page and you keep on changing it. You destroyed all my work and that is VANDALISM. Tony0106 ( talk) 09:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
I rebuilt the tables from scratch using the original reports: 2007/2008 (for 2005 data only / released in November, 2007) and 2008 Statistical Update (for 2006 data only / released in December 2008). ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Maybe I'm not looking at the list well enough, but looking at the revision history of this article, it looks like 213.100.68.170 has been vandalizing the list. Whatever the case, it looks like the Wikipedia list is different from the actual list ( http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/), e.g. the actual list shows Mozambique, not the Democratic Republic of Congo, at 175th position, and does not show Somalia at all. Looking through the history, it seems 213.100.68.170 did a lot of this, on 2 January 2009 and also 4 January 2009. If I've somehow got the wrong end of the stick then then I'm sorry for wasting your time, but if I'm right then I suggest that his edits get reverted, and also that from now on this page gets protected against vandalism. And will someone please archive some of this discussion page! Matthew Fennell ( talk) 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this article should be semi-protected. There have been numerous edits, citing, for example, the United Kingdom as the #1 rated country. This must be stopped. This is an important article, which draws clearly from [4]. Thank you. - Jondude11 ( talk) 06:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Continuing the discussion from the above section, which is marked as "Resolved" but I don't think it is. I looked at the cited reports, but I could not find where it lists changes in rank, could someone point me to the source for the changes in rank between 2006 and 2005 data? If the Changes in Rank columns of the table aren't published by the official report or another reliable source, then that would be Original Research, would it not? (To User:CieloEstrellado who noted in the above section that Wikipedia isn't reporting the revised data, but rather the data originally published in the reports, but that isn't so. The original reports published HDI values and ranks for that report based on 2005 data; while the article as I currently see it, reports not the published HDI values of 2005, but rather the rank changes which were not published. This means that the Wikipedia editor conducted original research when that editor did a comparison between two different reports.) Second, if the rank changes are indeed published and it is simply that I did not find it, then why are the originally published figures used instead of the revised and corrected figures that are consistent with the present (2006 data) report? It's simply illogical to compare the two if the original report calculated its G-values based on a different GDPpc (PPP) rate than the one used for the present report (as this was noted by the latest report, which furthers my suspicion that the changes in rank column could not have been published by the UNDP and is simply something added by Wikipedia editors). Lastly, would it not be much more useful to report the change in HDI of the reported nation rather than comparing changes in rank? Changes in rank could be affected by a host of other factors that are none of the reported nation's developmental concern, and beyond the control and jurisdiction of the reported nation (e.g., another nation grew at a faster rate than the reported nation, a war-torn nation's HDI plummets while sending the reported nation's rank up). While changes in a nation's HDI value (something I did find published in the official report) reflect actual human developmental trends of that nation, which is of greater concern to the general reader. Frankly, the changes in rank column make this table seem like an international competition between nations, when in fact, it is the trend within nations over the years that is of greater concern (i.e., intranational "competition" with previous HDI values rather than international "competition" between nations' ranks). Concluding, I think that the changes in rank column should be removed and replaced by the officially published changes in HDI values as reported in the latest official report. If I understand correctly, similar to User:Tony0106's proposal in the aforementioned section, with the Changes in Rank column replaced by Changes in HDI values. Thanks for reading! -- Shibo77 ( talk) 14:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
change the HDI of brazil now! ranking 58
Ok. I see this is going by previous year's.
201.27.183.98 has put Brazil as #1. Suggest reverting article and preventing 201.27.183.98 from editing the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.84.17 ( talk) 07:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Could these countries under this section be included in the list if they have a HDI measurement although from a different source? Also, Afghanistan's HDI is .0229 according to http://www.answers.com/topic/afghanistan which would put the country at the bottom of the list . 96.226.133.76 ( talk) 20:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Anon
I'd agree so. 71.170.30.237 ( talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Anon
The 0.781 number is from a Chinese report that may be found at http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/nationalreports/asiathepacific/china/China_2008_en.pdf. However, the report states in a footnote on page 11: "In November 2007, the World Bank’s International Comparisons Project released a revised PPP-based exchange rate, which gives lower US dollar estimates of Chinese income data, and therefore leads to higher US $1 per day poverty incidence. As the exact impact on poverty calculations of the new PPP numbers is not yet clear, this report uses the earlier numbers." In that case, that Chinese report used unadjusted (incorrect) GDP per capita numbers (as well as outdated life expectancy and education statistics, I might add). We should go by the UN report, which uses the adjusted (correct) GDP per capita numbers. Henjeng55155 ( talk) 20:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
we are in May
Isnt this so-called "update" of HDI ranks a hoax? I don't find it on UNDP's site and the given link doesn't work. M.M.S. ( talk) 10:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the dark green and black are very similar in color, and it is VERY difficult to tell these two apart, even though they are opposite ends of the spectrum... couldn't another color be used for either end of that scale? 205.250.64.235 ( talk) 03:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
If you go to each individual country chances are the HDI listed there and the position on the list is different to the one here. One of the two articles need to be fixed, or both. 66.57.44.247 ( talk) 06:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
United Kingdom's HDI is 0.942 yet when you go to the articles of its individual parts (England, Wales, Scotland, Northen Ireland) the numbers listed there are a lot lower. I know the gini coefficient is not related but there is some noticeable bias in individual articles about it: in poorer countries with a bad gini coefficient, there is a red or yellow indicator next to the number. However in richer, more popular countries with a bad gini (for example the U.S.), there is no colored indicator at all. What qualifies a gini as a "high" or "low"? Is there a threshold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.44.247 ( talk) 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Every bank need help of customers care please. Let us plan for there 105.112.224.216 ( talk) 12:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)