Talk:List of countries by Human Development Index/Archive 1

Portugal

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)

Venezuela and Ecuador

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)

Middle Eastern Countries

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)

Serbia

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??

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 No EU?

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)

The average of the 27 EU member states should be .871.Chiss Boy 01:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, did you weight the figures according to the populations of the countries (it would be ridiculous to allow the score for Malta to have the same influence on the result as that of Germany, which has about 200 times as many people). Sorry, I really can't be bothered to do the calculation myself to find out. :)

Anyway, the scores seem to be quoted directly from a UN report, so I don't think it would be fair to make changes in specific cases like the ones you suggested. I have no idea who you should contact to suggest that the EU or US states be included in the next edition. Besides, as I have just seen someone else suggest (I think it was on the Human Development Index page), the UN is probably more concerned with developing countries: the differences between the HDI of developed countries are tiny in comparison.

Lastly, why would anyone boast of having a large population or GDP? I don't think these measures have much bearing on important things like happiness and cultural/scientific achievement. Sorry, this isn't very relevant, I'll stop now... Bistromathic 16:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If the UN don't include the EU as an entity in their report we shouldn't include it. The main reason why, in other articles, the EU is included is that it is carried over from the source material. Subsequently, for the same reason I would argue for keeping the EU in the GDP tables I would argue against including it in the HDI tables until the UN starts issuing stats for it. 86.26.98.210 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect colors on map

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?

edit colours!for version 2006

Colors dont coresponde !!!

Macau

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:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;

(2) Rank of country’s HDI;

(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

EU average

EU average is 0,907 if it interests anyone. Alensha 18:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it in the HDI report (though I might've missed it). Where's this from? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

From adding the scores of the member states and dividing it by 25. Though it might be not the best way to find it out. Alensha 20:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I figured that. Original research notwithstanding, I think a better way to determine a figure for the EU would probably involve collating similar data for the EU countries in toto (total GDP per capita PPP, etc.) and plugging that data into the HDI equations. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

oops, I didn't think it counted as original research, it was simple mathematics :) anyway, I suspected this might be not the perfect result, that's why I wrote it on the talk page, not in the article. :) Alensha 22:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I might've done the same and, just for curiosity, might proceed as suggested above. And if it helps any, I recall seeing a paper somewhere that applied and analysed HDI criteria to Canadian provinces and territories. I'll get back to you shortly.  :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think, since so detailed knowledge for each country exists, that a calculation based on a weighted average of the countries' popuplations would be the most precise measure. For example, Germany would weigh a factor 20 more than, say, Norway. A rough estimate would put the EU HDI somewhere between 0.935 and 0.940.Crispy 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Font tags

Why are they allowed to live? Anyone would mind if I remove them? /Grillo 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you mean colour tags, no – the use of these tags were agreed upon previously to render HDI categories throughout Wp. If you mean something else, you'll have to elaborate. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

China, etc.

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.

I will rephrase this to UN members and other territories. Only two non-members have assigned HDI values, and values for other member countries are unavailable. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"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!

Yes. Simplicity: piped (wikifying) text allows for the rendition of one term yet linking to another. Generally, Taiwan is sufficient unless notations/distinctions of government are applicable, in which case Republic of China is appropriate; in cases of territoriality, Province of China or Taiwan, Province of China is apt. Other country long-form names in the HDI list and elsewhere have been similarly minimised (e.g., Libya, Macedonia) and to do otherwise is superfluous and may promote confusion. And pot, meet kettle: mainland China is indicated nowhere in the HDI report. I will not succumb to overpoliticising what should be a simple list. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"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?

Arguably, the current wording is just as confusing. The prior rendition is relevant and explicit – consult the HDI report, which notes that Hong Kong and Macau are SARs and that the UN does not include them (with Taiwan PoC) in assessments for China. Moreover SAR is a necessary initialism noted in the HDI report above and below (though this can be striken from the list, but should remain expanded in the note below); similarly Province of China is not abbreviated and (given a piped link) might be necessary only in the appropriate context. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"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)

I have; I will tweak this ... the current version is little better. Actually, the intention should be to convey that the UN doesn't recognise the government of the Republic of China, not the existence or recognition of the Province of China or Taiwan (territory) in general ... the latter two of which are noted in the HDI report (i.e., T,PoC). Besides, any such notations may be excessive (see below). RoC should only be noted when referring to their HDI self-assessment. And in this instance (if debate persists), Wikipedia terminology should agree with UN terminology.

As for spelling: while I won't buck the MoS, it is neither a guideline nor policy.

Agreed about list of countries blurb.

I'd also like to point out that this should not be excessively politicised as might be elsewhere in Wp. Despite the lists of countries already in Wp, there is no convention (to my knowledge) for the rendition of Taiwan/PoC/RoC in Wp. My aim is simplicity yet accuracy and I won't belabour this. If agreement cannot be reached regarding this, I will restore a severely parred down note on the list/HDI pages that exclude any references beyond those in the HDI report. Thank you. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:13, 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)

Arguably, it is relevant since it's directly noted in the HDI report. The above, though not necessarily unbelievable, is your opinion. If we wish to revert to an 'unadultered' list (and I see no pressing reason to yet), arguably the 'Taiwan' entry should only be included as an endnote (since this territory is not included on p. 328 of the 2005 report), not as an entry in the 'unavailable' category.

And while you've noted one convention, it's not policy. As above, this is a simple list: please do not insinuate arbitrary and extraneous interpretations (better found in the appropriate articles) beyond those in the HDI report. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:50, 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)

The report notes "Taiwan Province of China", with or without comma, not "Republic of China". There are appropriate linkages to RoC, etc. in the HDI list/article without overpoliticising it.

To that end: frankly, I'm unconcerned with what the Wp article says or your recitation/interpretation of what it says (e.g., 'denigration'): I'm resorting to what's in the UN report. And in Wp it's not necessarily about "truth": it's about verifiability ... and I will not confirm nor deny your position.

FYI: who do you think lead the charge to include the HDI throughout Wp, not to mention adding the list to it? Take a peek and get back to me. Similarly, I've added a note to the RoC infobox as a conciliation (and with citation), not as approval. This is a simple list, not requiring many of the overcomplexities and politicising recently introduced regarding these east Asian territories. In summary: until you can demonstrate why your interpretation/edits should usurp others (and you haven't, though I can be compelled otherwise) or unless a groundswell supports your edits, I'll make edits based on commentary above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked recent edits (e.g., China is noted in the report and relevant, and SAR is cryptic enough that expansion is necessary), but I'm satisfied with the current version. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:30, 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)

Again, this is your POV and logic. You've just proved my point – whose to say that the China article (as civilisation, a catch-all) doesn't or shouldn't comprise the PRC, et al. and be used? The article states just as well, and the hatnote links to PRC article anyway.

I realise there is a dichotomy between Wp content/naming conventions and articles (with no general objection about linking to them, your snide comment aside) and notions outside of Wp. However, this does not obviate them and I will not succumb to opining when source text/information for this UN-construct is clear. In this report, the UN notes China ... so that link will remain.

Furthermore, as I've cited before: if recent editions are or remain wholly contentious, I will remove any extraneous notions not found in the HDI report that cannot be verified. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:52, 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)

In your opinion. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Arguably, notions regarding these territories aren't one and the same. China is pipelnked to PRC in the list, and I see no difficulty linking it to the catch-all article below (currently) where PRC is also linked again. Similarly, discussions are underway to possibly move Republic of Ireland/Ireland and there's ongoing debate regarding Macedonia (where you'll observe the conciliatory note regarding the name, which I devised after discussion and has held) – in any event, both are already pipelinked properly in the HDI list. Moreover, re Palestinian territories: while not a UN member, a judgement call was made at that time (through a rough consensus, with little debate since) to enter information in the article for the political entity (Palestinian National Authority) since it has an infobox harking of the country infobox/template. The decision might've been different if it was elsewhere etc.

While I see little reason to restore lengthy names from the report, I wouldn't object. If that's the case and to truly nix any possible politicising of the list, however, the Taiwan entry would have to be removed from the list (since it's not in the HDI report) with mere note below.

In summary: I generally disagree with your assertions above, and do not see evidence of a consensus here or (frankly) elsewhere. Until a groundswell says otherwise, I see no reason to proceed as you suggest. And this discussion is getting quite lengthy and circuitous, from which I will disengage hereafter unless there's reason to the contrary. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:29, 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 first two are bona fide UN members in the list; PNA is already ambiguous but a compromise given its inclusion in the HDI list. Taiwan/RoC is not included in the list: if you wilfully insinuate such a link unnecessarily (and given objections above), I will nix its entry from the list and pare down the note. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia does not exist as a UN member. The UN member is called "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as a condition of its membership. read up here.--Jiang 08:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

In your opinion, and I disagree. Edit as you will, but I will correct. And that's it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

as easy as it's for you to dismiss everything as "my opinion", then it is the same for me to dismiss everything as "your opinion". you see no difficulty linking it to the catch-all article below (currently) where PRC is also linked again? well tough. that's your opinion. Of course, this approach is bad wikiquette. Wikipedia operates on consensus - if what I am posting is incorrect or unverifiable, then show what is correct or how it is not verifiable. Simply dismissing things as "opinion" and deliberately trying to incite an edit war will not do.--Jiang 08:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. This isn't discussion: this is quibbling over minutiae that (as stated above) arguably shouldn't even be in the article. You have not compelled for proposed changes and (despite your evocations of consensus) have not been arrived at through consensus. Tough. We all have opinions: given the above, however, it's clear that your insistance on using RoC in this simple list – when said term isn't used in the HDI report, or consistently in Wp – demonstrates clear bias. Wp needn't pander to this: for those reasons, I needn't and won't debate this further (unless necessary) and will disengage from this discussion. (Of course, others can and should comment.) In the interim, said edits will be judiciously dealt with and if anyone precipitates an edit war, it won't be me. End communication. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for gutting the names and related edits. :) To that end, I've tweaked the entries/names to reflect those in the UN HDI report ... except for Macedonia, where I nixed [T]he from the longform. This should not be contentious and I'm fine with it. (See, I'm easy.) I'm sure we can move forward in building Wp. Thanks again for your engagements and accommodation! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the report..

According to the report, Hong Kong, as listed in the table, is written as "Hong Kong, China (SAR)". (PDF Google cache) — Instantnood 18:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As well, renditions on p. 213 of the report do not render the names as edited, nor spell Macau with the "o", nor include "the". I will copyedit. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Nevertheless, I'm afraid, that for UN purposes, and as according to what the PRC designates, islands such as Kinmen (Quemoy) and Matsu are not considered part of what's covered by "Taiwan, Province of China". The islands are considered by the PRC, and possibly consenquently by the UN, as part of PRC's Fujian, Hainan and Guangdong provinces. — Instantnood 19:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

TY. However, as you can see above, there have been varied attempts to add details to the notes that -- arguably -- do not even belong in this listing, which should hark of the UN report. The UN report is explicit and indicates "Taiwan, Province of China": I see no reason to introduce dialectic where links to apt topics are already sufficient. Moreover, it is bad form to indicate et cetera in a listing where there's already contention over usage of terms. I will be be copyediting this again. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Please kindly be reminded that the UN designation of "Taiwan, Province of China" does not entirely correspond to the extent under effective control of the ROC. — Instantnood 19:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Apropos: current wikilinks/articles already address this. Also be reminded that this is a simple list based on the UN report, not a political manifesto about Chinese or Taiwanese territoriality or sovereignty. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming the text. — Instantnood 21:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

NP! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Update

This list needs to be updated, has the Un released a new report for 2005?--Moosh88 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not yet (I think) ... but when an updated report is released, the article and list will be updated forthwith. Stay tuned! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please update List of statistically superlative countries when this does happen? --Liface 05:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

France Ad?

How come there is an ad for france in the HDI box hmm? Propaganda if you ask me.

Macao

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)

While, yes, they are technically equal, the entries in the list are per the UN Human Development Report. An HDI was calculated for Hong Kong but not for Macau, thus ... Cogito ergo sumo 07:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

need to update

from 2003 figures to 2006 – due out November 9th 2006.

Some edits for FL status

I've made some edits to try to bring it close IMO to FL status.

• The notes/references have been tidied and use templates to ensure the essential info is captured. The article no longer has external links in the body-text or anonymous hyperlinks.
• The lead recently gained much of the text from HDI. I've re-wikilinked this and trimmed it a bit to remove stuff which is merely elaborating on the summary paragraph – we don't need to expand the topic to any depth here, since that's what the other article is for.
• I've found a ref for Mahbub ul Haq's contribution.
• I've dropped the second map, which didn't add anything other than a cruder grouping into high/medium/low. Both maps are repeated on the HDI article, so really we don't need too many copies.
• In keeping with FLC 1f and 2b, I've broken the table into sections so that the TOC can navigate to each.

Colin°^Talk 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not ranked

Is including a "Rank" column for the tables under the section heading "Not ranked" really necessary? Littleghostboo[ talk ] 07:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan HDI

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)

List according to year

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)

Agreed, or some date included in the title for reference and overlap when future reports come out. -- Stbalbach 17:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This really needs to be updated

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!

Now it does thanks to Robert Mugabe. ArchonMeld 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Organization of the past data

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.)

• Please check the position, many pages refers to original page(I saw later), there is a mistake or not.
• It is necessary to have an article with original name(ie.List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index) as (like an ambuq. page) main page which include links to articles named with years.

like as;

---

Main article;:List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index include the follovings; ---

For 2004 index see List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index, 2004

For 2005 index see List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index, 2005

For 2006 index see List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index,2006

etc. --- I need your urgent help. Regards Must^TC 14:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Mustafa just now we have only two such lists: the most recent and 2005. The List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index is redirected to the most recent and the historical data are referenced from there. I think it is reasonable, but other layouts are discussable. I will copy your message on the talk page of the article. Alex Bakharev 23:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. While it would be useful to have past ones, there's no reason for the current one to have the 2006 in its name. It is unarguable, that people will almost certainly be looking for the current list unless specified otherwise. So, on that note, I moved it back. It would've had to have been moved again either way since the punctuation was wrong. - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've raised objections to these yearly snapshots at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by Human Development Index, 2005. BTW: If the snapshots are kept, I think the current one should include the current year and the main name then just becomes a redirect. That will satisfy those "looking for the current list". That way, you don't have to keep moving the article each year, and it is clear to the reader the date on which the report is based. Colin°^Talk 00:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Map is wrong

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)

Opps! I just realized it was correct. Sorry... December 2nd 2006, 15:41 (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)

Link to porn in the notes section

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).

Germany

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)

Dont Worry, its also France, Italy and the UK supposingly to be of better HDI. UN Statistics are commonly wrong and heavily biased. Check the Happy_Planet_Index to find that spain, france and the uk are listing way behind germany. Might cheer you up. Also it isnt from "super always right" UN Statistics.

Some stats are significantly worse for Germany than for Spain such as Life Expectancy, and there really isn't much difference in score between highly developed countries in the HDI, as the Index is primarily developed to measure the progress of developing countries. 81.227.0.85 02:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

69.236.xx.xx

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.

[1]

[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)

Puerto Rico

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 World?

And the HDI of the World? It's possible to know it? 81.33.126.225 14:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the article to include such data. CG 22:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Structure for this page

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)

Give it a try. I'd like to see the result. CG 18:36, 20 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)

I completed the table for High HDI but I made them in small font. Do you think they are getting too crowdy with too much information? CG 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you've confused change in rank, with change in HDI. The arrows and numbers in the HDI box for the 'high' table don't represent the change in HDI from last year, they represent the change in rank. The table currently gives the impression that many countries' HDI dropped or remained the same when in reality they increased. MaesterTonberry 12:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous years list

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)

What about the change in ranks?

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)

still discrepancies in changes from last year

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)

NAFTA and EU averages are irrelevant

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))

From the values at List of European Union member states by population and this article itself, I calculated the weighted average value to be 0.919. This should be checked so I didn't make a typo anywhere in the calculation though...

Here is the data I used in a kind-of-almost-spreadsheet-friendly format (save as .CSV, open in a suitable spreadsheet app, make sure the formulas work, and adjust decimal comma and stuff if necessary...)

"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)"

TimSE 16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BIG MISTAKE!!!! MEXICO ARGENTINA SWITCHED!!!

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

EU

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)

As valid as this argument may be, this is original research -- provide a reputable source that indicates the HDI of the EU, don't calculate and add it yourself. Corticopia 13:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The reputable source is School Mathematics. Isn't School Mathematics reputable enough?

If you want, you can add an "original research" message - and I won't insist, but footnote no. 9 is instead of such a message, because footnote no. 9 indicates the very ("original") source of the "research", by pointing at the very trivial calculation (i.e an average calculation, including a link for calculating averages). This footnote details also the figures needed for the calculation, i.e. every country's data (of HDI and of population).

Eliko 14:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No: a foot/note legitimising your calculation based on 'School Mathematics' is insufficient. It's misleading. And it may be incorrect: a different class of that very same ... course may reveal that a weighted average (based on population, size of economy et al.) is more appropriate. Whatever the case, though, it's original research -- please provide a reputable reference -- e.g., value published in a journal or by the EU itself -- before adding your figure again. And I fail to see why I should have to add a note regarding original research by your own admission for your addition of possibly misleading and inaccurate content. Corticopia 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

when I wrote "average" - I meant the weighted mean. for every i, substitute the country's quantity of population - for wi, and substitute the country's HDI for xi.

Are you a mathematician (as I am)? if you are (and I assume you are) - then you probably figure out very well that you shouldn't have written about this trivial calculation: "It's misleading. And it may be incorrect...your addition of possibly misleading and inaccurate content"...

School Mathematics is really a source, unless no wikipedian could have edited any articles involving simple mathematical calculations (e.g. the article about multiplication), and so on.

The formula for calculating the HDI is given in the article: Human Development Index. If you understand well the formula (and I assume you do) - then you're entailed to comprehend the absolute equivalence between both ways of calculations: the direct way (i.e. using the above formal formula and data of the whole EU, which weren't supplied in Wikipedia), or the indirect way, i.e. by calculating the weighted average - as described above. this absolute equivalence can simply be proved by using School Mathematics.

Eliko 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

While I have studied algebra, trig, and calculus, I don't need to know 'School Mathematics' to know that this calculation and the addition of this value -- though arguably predicated on the equations in the Human Development Report -- is original research. Please read the policy. I can also argue that 2 + 2 = 5, and can at least source that assertion. And you continue to re-add this information, i.e., against consensus, despite at least three users (including myself) that concur about its originality. Until you provide a reputable source corroborating this value, and you can add all the tags you want to dress it up, this unsourced information will be continually removed. Corticopia 21:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No reputable relyable source approves the assertion 2+2=5.

School Mathematics is a reputable relyable source (hadn't it been so - you would have had to delete all of the examples given in the articles multiplication or division). The way for calculating weighted average is a part of the mathematical curriculum staudied at school, and one can use school mathematics - also for realizing the relevance of the weighted average here.

There are at least ten identified wikipedians (excluding wikipedians identified by their IP address only) - who think EU entry should be added:

• Brainboy109

• Crispy

• David Kernow

• Eliko

• Kardrak

• Mitth'raw'nuruodo

• Nightstallion

• Ran

• RedHotHeat

• TimSE

Now, there are two alternatives for settling the dispute

• WAR
• COMPROMISE

WAR means that when I (or other wikipedians who hold my point of view) add the EU entry - then you (or other wikipedians who share your opinion) will continue to remove it, and then I (or others) will continue to add it, and then you (or others) will continue to remove it, and then I (or others) etc., and then you (or others) etc., and then...and then...and vice versa (in accordance with Wikipedia rules of reverting, of course).

COMPROMISE means that each opinion will be accepted - not wholly - but partly. For example, attaching the tag "citation needed", or other tags (as "original research", "est."), or any other fair compromise which can be suggested by you too.

Now it's time to decide: war or fair compromise: I'm ready to manage with either alternative, but tell me first your alternative.

Eliko 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those 10 supporters have overtly indicated here (from what I gather) about the retention of this value in this debate. Even if they did, that does not trump the policy of not including original research in Wikipedia, which your value is by your own admission. I am a dimwit, and I cannot verify that the value you have concocted is correct. I will concede to include it, though, if it the value can be sourced, not the methology behind it. Until then, it will be removed ... and edit warring in Wikipedia may lead to blocking of said editors. Corticopia 15:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Don't fear: as an honest person - I never block wikipedians as long as they observe Wikipedia rules.
• Regarding the rest of your claims - see below.

Eliko 19:00, 30 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)

If you think my calculation is inaccurate - you are invited to supply more accurate estimation. Meanwhile, I won't insist if you add the word "estimation" to the EU entry - untill you supply a better figure.

Eliko 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the point of what I said was that a simple weighted average doesn't work because of the logarithm term. So, yes your calculation would be inaccurate and original research. Why can't you just find a value for the HDI. I'm sure Eurostat has it somewhere. --Polaron | Talk 12:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think that - due to the logarithm term - my calculation "would be inaccurate and original research" (really "would be" and not "surely is"), then you can replace my figure by a "would-be" better figure which "Eurostat has somewhere", and meanwhile - untill you bring your better figure - you can add the word "estimation", and also the tag "citation needed".

Eliko 13:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the responsibility of the editor who wishes to add new information to ensure that the information is verifiable and attributed to a reliable source. --Polaron | Talk 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC

Untill the editor finds the citation for what he considers to be a good estimation - he can either: 1. add the tag "citation needed". 2. and/or attach the tag "estimation". 3. and/or attach the tag "original research". 4. and/or attach a footnote indicating how one can receive the figure. 5. and/or attach the tag "N/A". 6. or replace the figure by the tag "N/A". 7. etc.

Choose any of the above alternatives. If you think you've got any better alternative - suggest it for discussion.

Eliko 14:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is this: until someone produces the EU's HDI from a reputable, reliable source, it doesn't belong in this article/listing of countries by HDI and, frankly, in Wikipedia. And that's it. Corticopia 21:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that School Mathematics is a reputable relyable source (hadn't it been so - you would have had to delete all of the examples given in the articles Multiplication or Division). The way for calculating weighted average is a part of the mathematical curriculum studied at school, and one can use school mathematics - also for realizing the relevance of the weighted average here.

Eliko 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Source the value, not the methodology behind it. As it is, the EU does not have an HDI value (that I know of) and your value, no matter what the methodology is behind it, is original and arguably inaccurate. Thus, in accordance with Wikipedia policies and procedures, removal of this information is the only alternative. Corticopia 15:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are three disputes between us: 1. whether or not this is an original research. 2. Is there only one alternative (as you think), or there are many (at least six) other fair alternatives (detailed in my response to Polaron) which may settle the first dispute after both sides accept to reach a reciprocal fair compromise. 3. Assuming there is only one alternative: is it my attitude held up to now - i.e. to continually add the EU entry, or your attitude held up now - i.e. to continually remove the EU entry.

• With regard to the first dispute between us: as I've explained above my attitude, school mathematics is the source - not only for methodology - but also for the very relevance of that methodology here. Look: the value itself shouldn't be sourced - if it is received after accomplishing basic mathematical operations the validity of which is approved by a reputable relyable source: school mathematics - after having considered the very definition of HDI. Hadn't it been so - you would have had to delete all of the examples given in the articles Multiplication or Division etc.
• With regard to the second dispute: in my opinion, as opposed to what you've written - the removal of the EU entry is not the only alternarive: I've sugested you (had you prefered a fair compromise) two other alternatives, and I've suggested Polaron six alternatives: 1. add the tag "citation needed". 2. and/or attach the tag "estimation". 3. and/or attach the tag "original research". 4. and/or attach a footnote indicating how one can receive the figure. 5. and/or attach the tag "N/A". 6. or replace the figure by the tag "N/A". Now look: accepting a compromise - doesn't mean the compromise should be just one of the above six alternatives I've suggested Polaron. If you have another one - we can discuss it. However, while I've suggested many other alternatives, you've suggested no other alternative, except for your requirement to make me accept your original attitude, which requires to supply a source - other than the (reputable relyable) mathematical source, although you know very well that - so far - I have got no such an additional source.
• With regard to the third dispute: it's relevant if the sides really prefer a war instead of a compromise. do you prefer a war? if you really do - then it's OK. you will insist - and I will insist as well: the EU entry will continually be added and removed and added and removed and...and...and...etc. etc. etc. - untill both sided agree to throw away their weapons and to accept a fair compromise.

Eliko 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And I've explained my attitude. The alternatives above are, with whatever tag, untenable to me. So, compromise is simple -- this is fairly clear-cut. You either:

(1) provide a reputable, reliable source for the EU value, which you have calculated on your own, or

(2) unless a consensus asserts otherwise and supports the inclusion of this original research, it doen't belong in the article and will be continually removed.

That's it. Corticopia 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia - requires sources for original search only. Wikipedia does not require sources for Synthesis of published material (unless this synthesys serves to advance a position). Furthermore, wikipedia determines: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged". Wikipedia permits (and also encourages) "secondary sources".

Even if the EU entry had been an original research (what it's not) - the problem could be solved by many other alternative ways (except for removing the entry), e.g. you may, alternatively, "tag the sentence by adding the {fact} template, or tag the article by adding {not verified} or {unsourced}".

You know very well that - up to now - I have no source other than the reputable relyable source of (mathematical)Synthesis of published material (which does not serve to advance a position). Despite all of that - you don't suggest a fair compromise, and you even don't accept my first or my sixth alternative (which I've suggested Polaron), which could settle all of your problems. In other words - you don't want a fair compromise, but you prefer a war. OK. As long as you observe Wikipedia rules - including 3RR - then it's OK.

Don't fear: as an honest person - I never block wikipedians as long as they observe Wikipedia rules. As I've learnt many times during my life: honesty - is the best policy.

Eliko 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

European Union

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)

That article (which one cannot even link to here due to a spam blacklisting...) looks to a large part (from the infobox and forward) an awful lot like an older version (e.g. November 2006) of the Wikipedia article on European Union. Which would make the figure lack proper backing again. It would definitively be interesting to see a figure for EU in this list, but one needs to find some figures on a firm footing. –– TimSE 17:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- I was about to say the same thing. In the meanwhile, those who insist on adding the figure can source it reliably before readding it. Corticopia 17:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

On last Friday someone violated the 3RR. This is the last warning.

Wikipedia - requires sources for original search only. Wikipedia does not require sources for Synthesis of published material (unless this synthesys serves to advance a position). Furthermore, wikipedia determines: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged". Wikipedia permits (and also encourages) "secondary sources".

Even if the EU entry had been an original research (what it's not) - the problem could be solved by many other alternative ways (except for removing the entry), e.g. you may, alternatively, "tag the sentence by adding the {fact} template, or tag the article by adding {not verified} or {unsourced}".

Eliko 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Spare your threats and sophistry -- only edited twice on F. Is it so difficult to reliably source an HDI value for the EU, or to produce one not derived through (your) original research? As of yet, no one has attributed EU figures to a reliable source. I challenge the validity of the reference and figures added previously -- please corroborate on the talk page. Otherwise, I can only presume that said editor seeks to make a point -- after all, pride is a sin -- and said additions will be removed. And, that's it. Corticopia 18:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

On friday - someone (whose name I haven't mentioned) has made his third revert - within 24 hours (which began on Thursday 23:47) - thus violating the 3RR. This is the last warning for letting him know that the 3 reverts are counted within 24 hours and not within a day in a week.

This article is based on published material for every EU member, wheresas my figure for the EU HDI is a weighted average of all EU members, i.e. my figure for the EU HDI is a synthesis of that published material. Now, Wikipedia does not require sources for Synthesis of published material (unless this synthesys serves to advance a position). Furthermore, wikipedia determines: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged". Wikipedia permits (and also encourages) "secondary sources".

Both of us are sinners, both of us are proud, and both of us insist (for ever). However, my pride involves suggesting six fair alternatives, while you've suggested no fair alternative: You know very well that - up to now - I have no source other than the reputable relyable source of (mathematical)Synthesis of published material (which does not serve to advance a position). Despite all of that - you don't suggest a fair compromise, and you even don't accept my first or my sixth alternative (which I've suggested Polaron), which could solve all of your problems. In other words - you don't want a fair compromise, but you prefer a war. OK. Just be careful with the 3RR (referring to 24 hours).

Eliko 18:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Eliko and Corticopia: Stop fighting. The fair compromise is behind the door.Manstorius 18:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Eliko, get your facts straight and stop warbling. [[WP:#RR|3RR]] means reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, but may be applied by admins at their discretion if the spirit of 3RR is broken. If you press, rest assured I will seek the gravest sanctions for your edit warring and tendentious editing.

Manstorius, that is passable, but the addition of any value without reliable sourcing/attribution -- and that includes original synthesis concocted by Eliko -- will be dealt with as before. Corticopia 18:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The person who has chosen edit warring - was another person - but me. Furthermore, I was the first person who suggested Manstorius's compromise, which was my sixth alternative (which I've been suggesting you for many times, since May 30). Thank you for eventually accepting my sixth alternative. If you'd accepted it some days earlier - your edit warring could have been behind us since then.

Regarding my synthesis:

• my synthesis is a weighted average of all EU members. Every weighted average is a part of school mathematics, and school mathematics can never be concocted.
• This article is based on published material for every EU member, wheresas my figure for the EU HDI is a valid weighted average of all EU members, i.e. my figure for the EU HDI is a valid synthesis of that published material. Now, Wikipedia does not require sources for Synthesis of published material (unless this synthesys serves to advance a position). Furthermore, wikipedia determines: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged". Wikipedia permits (and also encourages) "secondary sources".

Regarding the 3RR - you're absolutely right, but I've never mentioned any names (on purpose).

Regarding the "gravest sanctions" you've mentioned: of course they will be taken (by both of us) in the future if anybody violates any Wikipedia rules.

Eliko 19:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continue to espouse sophistry regarding your tabulation -- your synthesis, no matter how well reasoned, IS original research and will be incessantly labelled as such. And by that very nature, it is not I who initiated retaliatory editing -- if an editor adds subjective drivel to an article, removal of that drivel is tantamount to nothing more than restoring the status quo. Edit warring would have been behind us, and not have even started, had you acknowledged that or understood just what original research means. End story, and end communication. Corticopia 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continue to espouse sophistry regarding my tabulation -- my synthesis, though you know very well that it is not an original research, but a legitimate synthesis which is highly recommended by wikipedia? And by that very nature, it is not I who initiated retaliatory editing -- if an editor removes a legitimate synthesis from an article, adding it back is tantamount to nothing more than restoring the status quo. Edit warring would have been behind us, and not have even started, had you acknowledged that or understood just what legitimate synthesis means, or if you'd accepted my sixth alternative some days earlier and not as late as today. End story, and end communication.Eliko 22:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Corticopia 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Let it be. Eliko 22:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research?

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)

Yes -- see above. Corticopia 13:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

None of the numbers are problematic. Wikipedia permits (mathematical) Synthesis made by the wikipedians (e.g. calculations of averages etc.) - by processing gross data which appear in published material (not serving to advance a position). Wikipedia also determines: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged". Wikipedia permits (and also encourages) "secondary sources".

Eliko 00:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Eliko, the rule, WP:SYN, that you cited did not say that. It still requires all data to be cited from reliable source. Producing the data by calculating it does not fall under WP:SYN. That calculation is made through implication, not through direct citation. Hence, the figure for EU for example, is original research. The first sentence of WP:SYN clearly said this: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Has your calculation been published by a reliable source before? __earth ^(Talk) 10:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you haven't read what I'd written. I didn't write: "Synthesis made by the wikipedians...by processing gross data which appear in published material"; Instead, I did write as follows: "Synthesis made by the wikipedians...by processing gross data which appear in published material (not serving to advance a position)". This is absolutely consistent with what you've cited: Syntehsis should not be made by wikipedians if it is intended to serve to advance a position, which means that the synthesis is permitted if it is not inteneded to serve to advance a position, and this is exactly what I'd written.

Furthermore, I'm sure you haven't read the other referrences I'd indicated. e.g., here is a citation from Wikipedia rules regarding reliable sources:"research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged". Wikipedia permits (and also encourages) "secondary sources". Now, pay attention to the fact that the EU figure - is a secondary source (highly recommended by Wikipedia), since it's based on collecting and organizing information (i.e. calculating weighted average) from existing primary reliable sources (i.e the formal figures of each country).

Yours sincerely.

Eliko 10:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully concur with Earth et al: the above is an, unsurprisingly, original interpretation of the original research guideline. Corticopia 13:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, you fully concur with Earth. Unsurprisingly, you relate to the clear Wikipedia guideline as if it were an "original interpretation" - although Wikipedia guideline has only one objective interpretation. Note that an "original interpretation" is (e.g.) when one interpretes Wikipedia clear words: "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" - as if these clear words referred also to synthesis of published material - that does not serve to advance a position.

Eliko 18:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's the point: through your continuous insistence in either adding a self-calculated (and perhaps incorrect) HDI value for the EU or in advocating for having an entry for that entity in the table, despite an absence of an EU HDI value in the UN HDR, you are advancing a position. Corticopia 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The position I advance is one: adhering to Wikipedia's recommendation: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary...sources is, of course, strongly encouraged".

The position you advance is one: insistence in either removing a legitimate-calculated (and strongly encouraged) HDI value for the EU, or in advocating for removing an entry for that entity in the table (as you'd behaved for a long period before you agreed to accept my sixth alternative), despite WIKIPEDIA's clear recommendation for "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary...sources".

Eliko 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Eliko, it will need to be cited, per what has been said by WP:SYN. __earth ^(Talk) 06:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What will need to be cited? Did you mean, any HDI value for the EU - will need to be cited? If this is what you meant - then listen my friend: no need to cite that value, since Wikipedia rules - do not require to cite any synthesis which does not serve to advance a position. Can you cite any Wikipedia rule contradicting what I've just claimed? I can cite the following Wikipedia rule: Original research (OR) is a term...applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position...Wikipedia is not the place for original research".. Can you cite any clearer Wikipedia rule?

Eliko 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:OR is Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. Further, observes in the original sentence that you cited that actually comes after this first sentence, there is a word also. So, again, is your figure a published figure? __earth ^(Talk) 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The HDI value for the EU - is an estimated figure, and it was exhibited as such, not as a "fact", nor as a "concept", nor as a "statement", nor as a "theory". This estimated figure is simply a synthesis of of published material.

This estimated figure, being a synthesis (which does not need a citation since it does not "serve to advance a position"), is a "secondary source". Wikipedia does not require citations for "secondary sources".

Furthermore: here is another citation from Wikipedia rules:"research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged".

Eliko 18:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unavailable data

Where are the figures in the Unavailable data section from?

I would like to know this also, how did North Korea end up with a 0.766 HDI when there are rumours of cannibalism? --68.239.70.248 18:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There are also rumours of cannibalism in other, higher developed countries... -- megA (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusion between change in HDI with change in rank

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)

You're absolutely correct. I've just changed the arrows. Eliko 11:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

CUBAS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

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.

Unfortunately, we are not the ones conducting this.. Cuba also has reasonable medical care, and education.. I don't think Haiti does. Its crime is also lower.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.247.115 (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Map

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)

Svalbard

Should Svalbard really be considered part of Norway on the map?

Svalbard is a part of Norway, so yes. 80.202.213.26 (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

EU in lists

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)

2007 or 2008?

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)

• Every November, the UN publishes a new HDI list, which reflects the data as of two years earlier.
• The most updated HDI list - is so far - that list published in last November of 2006.
• In last November (of 2006) - the UN published the last HDI list, which reflects the data of 2004.
• The next HDI list is supposed to be issued in November (2007), and is going to reflect the data of 2005.
• Anymore questions?

Eliko 15:46, 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)

CIA WFB or UN

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)

The life expectancy UN table you've referred to - does not intend to supply data for 2007 (as the CIA table does) - but to supply prospects for 2005-2010 - based on data of earlier years. If you want to compare CIA with UN you have to look at UN data for 2007. These data have not been published yet. All one has from UN is data of 2004. Eliko 20:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory info regarding Canada

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 problem is now solved (according to UN report). Eliko 19:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Croatia

The country Croatia appears twice on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.44.134 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to only be listed once now. -- Bovineone 18:09, 2 November 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)

USA Rankking

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)

Ivory Coast

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)

That is all great but editors on the Cote d'Ivoire article have decided to stay with Cote d'Ivoire as the name of the article despite efforts to change it to Ivory Coast. If you want to join the debate the please go to the Cote d'Ivoire talk page. In the meantime this article will have Cote d'Ivoire listed and NOT Ivory Coast because Ivory Coast is a re-direct. --Tocino 08:42, 5 Decemver 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion - this article is committed to the other article.

In my opinion - both articles are committed to the fact that we are here in the english Wikipedia, not in the french Wikipedia; Consequently, in my opinion, the french name should nowhere be used in the english wikipedia; Consequently, the error found in the country article - should be removed from the country article as well.

Anyway, by the time the error is removed from the country article, this article is not committed to temporary errors found in another article - which does not obey the english language usage which must be adopted in the english Wikipedia. That's why I don't accept Manstorius's "compromise", and I want it to be changed back to the old version - which is committed to the english language usage which must be adopted in the english Wikipedia. Ostiferia (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point. But this is not the place to fight this battle, please go to the Cote d'Ivoire talk page to discuss why the article should be changed to Ivory Coast. If you keep reverting I will report you to admins. --Tocino 17:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your point. The original version of this article used the english name, and you are the person who had decided to revert the original version; However, this is not the place to start again the other battle of the other article. You send me to another article - in order to make this article committed to errors made in other articles - which do not obey the english language usage - which must be adopted in the english Wikipedia. That's why I think the compromise is unfair, and I will never accept it. If you keep reverting I will report you to admins. Ostiferia (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the POV tags as these tags spoil an otherwise perfectly good article. The issue at hand is in my view not a POV issue but rather something that relates to Wikipedia naming conventions. I agree with Tocino above that this is not the place to resolve the "Cote d'Ivoire" / "Ivory Coast" issue. If you really do want to make an issue of it here you should clearly indicate that there is a POV discussion here and suggest a way to resolve it. This should give the opportunity for resolving the issue so that the page is not blighted by an unsightly tag on what is essentially a non-issue. laurens (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is the EU entry?

There should be a compound figure for the EU entry included. The rationale for the inclusion is based on the following arguments:

a) Country like characteristics: Common market, common policies, common institutions, bodies, agencies, common EU legislation, a single budget financing projects in all member states. Its own budget to fund common programmes such as the European Union's programmes in agriculture, research and education. A common fund for trans-country infrastructure projects and for regional development. Election every 5 years and a European parliament as well as a EU court of justice, common currency Euro, EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate , EU-Anthem, EU-Citizenship, Schengen agreement, one representation of all 27 member states in WTO, Permanent G8 participant, Permanent UN observer.

b) already ranked in several other media and statistics like CIA WorldFactBook, IMF data sheet, Wikipedia List of countries by GDP (PPP) etc.

c) many other entries are included unranked with unclear state or country definition like the Overseas territories, Vatican, Hongkong and others. EU is not per se an exception.

d) Note that the inclusion of the EU is granted to its sui generis status and can not advocate the inclusion of Opec, Nato, African Union, UN, Commonwealth, Arab League, Mercosur, NAFTA, ASEAN and others. The degree of a state-like-entity and its characteristics make this a singular case.

e) Because of the sui generis status, the 27 member states will remain as single entry while the EU becomes unranked.

f) Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries

Lear 21 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Importance

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)

Please, can you show the changes in points too? I was reading the table and it seems that this is the most interesting thing of all! daniel7^talk 22:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: names to be used for Côte d'Ivoire and Timor-Leste

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)

• Yes of course - WP:UE is explicit that this is the English language Wikipedia. We should always offer English-language terms. I would replace the names outright and not bother with parentheses. MilesAgain (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• I would like to point out that Côte d'Ivoire and Timor-Leste are the official English short form names as listed by the ISO. I would even suggest removing the archaic names completely. --Polaron | Talk 13:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think it's clear that these are the official English names of these countries, and so should be used. Bracketed unofficial "common names" are un-necessary and add nothing. --Haemo (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• What is an "official English name"? Country names are proper nouns, and therefore do not require translation. The United Nations, in the English language source document that is the basis for this article uses "Côte d'Ivoire" and "Timor-Leste". I would this it is original research for us to try and "correct" the UN designations! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

These are not POV / NPOV issues - these are naming conventions which should be discussed elsewhere and not in an article that isn't directly concerned with the issue. laurens (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuation: a copy from Andrwsc's talk page

Hello.

"Spain/Espania" too is a proper name, but if the UN english document had used the spanish proper name "Espania" - then we would have transformed it into "Spain" in the english Wikipedia articles, right?

The difference between "São Tomé and Príncipe" (or "Burkina Faso") - on one hand, and "Timor-Leste" (or "Espania" or "Côte d'Ivoire") - on the other hand, is quite simple: the english speaker doesn't say "Timor-Leste" (nor does he say: "Espania", nor: "Côte d'Ivoire"), but rather: "East-Timor" ("Spain", "Ivory Coast"), while the same english speaker does use the foreign proper names: "São Tomé and Príncipe", "Burkina Faso" (or "Benin"), etc.

SSnormal (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your hypothetical question about "España" — if that is how the nation was identifed in English-language publications of the United Nations, then yes, I would use that name in this article. And I dispute your statement that the "english speaker" doesn't say "Timor-Leste" or "Côte d'Ivoire". I am an English speaker who uses those names exclusively, and judging from the discussion on the talk pages for those two nations' articles, I'm not the only one...

Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

Your answer regarding my hypothetical question about "Espania" - is a direct necessary conclusion from your basic attitude: to prefer the naming conventions used by the primary reference from the UN, just as my opposite answer for that very question - is a necessary conclusion from my basic attitude: to prefer the english speaker's usage...

When I talked about the "english speaker" - I referred to the average english speaker, i.e to the majority of the english speakers: Indeed, the term "Ivory Coast" had been the original name, before the Ivorian government changed it into the french name, and most of the english speakers still use the original name - i.e the english name. Anyway, if you hold that the majority uses "Timor-Leste" or "Côte d'Ivoire" - rather than "East Timor", "Ivory Coast", then we hereby arrive at a second dispute, which is very easy to check out...

SSnormal (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put a Request for Comments on the talk page of the article. My talk page is not the correct forum for this discussion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting the request on the talk page, but unfortunately you haven't well represented my attitude: Your attitude is to totally ignore the english version of the names (due to the reasoning you've indicated there), while my attitude is to totally ignore the foreign version of the names (due to the reasoning I've indicated here). Please give the full reasoning for both attitudes. Thank you in advance.

SSnormal (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So add your comments to the RfC discussion. Please continue all discussion there; it is pointless to continue on my talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

I accept your recommandation that I add my comments (in favor of my basic attitude of adhering to the english versions only i.e. of omitting the foreign versions).

SSnormal (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FYR Macedonia

I have restored the term used by the UNDP for the country, per WP:MOSMAC. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What do the numbers giving the change mean?

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)

Russia

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)

Regarding the list of Europe, look at footnote no. 9. Regarding the list of Asia: the list of countries by Continents indicates the highest ten and the lowest ten, while Russis is ranked outside the ten. Eliko (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OECD went down?

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)

Disputed tag on "East Timor"

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)

IMPORTANT-AUSTRALIA'S HDI

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)

LUXEMBOURG AND AUSTRALIA HAVE BEEN SWITCHED

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)

Asia-Pacific??? and other stuff

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)

Could you please explain your last question? Eliko (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

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)

Report 2008

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)

2008 Update: Maps must be updated

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)

Im confused about what year is shown. The current rankings are from the 2008 report which is about 2006? Have the HDI numbers been updated for 2006 as well ( 0.968 etc) despite the table column being labelled 2005? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Nm i see now some of the tables titles had not been updated, so ive changed them to 2006 (published in 2008). Im not sure if the current change column figures are correct though. In 2005 UK had 0.946 and was ranked 16th it is now 0.942 and ranked 21st but the column Change compared to 2005 data (published in 2007) says the UK has only fallen by 2 places. AM i looking at the figures wrong or is it incorrect? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

First, we are showing the 2006 report which was published in October 2008. All the HDI values had been updated and I actually forgot to change the title because I didn't pay attention to them. I found I didn't change that the day later so I edit it but I probably even forgot to update all the titles. If you want to see all the values you can either click on a specific country here or download the entire table here and then click on Indicators Table HDI 2008 which also shows the previous values. To BritishWatcher: The UK was 16th in the 2004 report then it fell 3 places to 19th in the 2005 report and is now 21st. The problem was that before I updated the tables with the 2006 report not all the countries have their actual ranking and value in accordance to the 2005 report. Some countries even had their 2006 value already. For example Venezuela was already in the 61st place and it say it jumped 13 positions compared to their 2004 value. The truth was that Venezuela was 64th in 2005 but it was never updated so before that somebody updated Venezuela's ranking the country was 74th (according to the 2004 report). Other countries appeared like Kazakhstan appeared 3 times in the tables with reports from 2004-2006. It was a disaster. I believe that people where just updating the indicators for their own countries but instead of editing the tables they were just adding information on it. Tony0106 (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh i see thanks for explaining that, could you take a look at the main Human development index article, because the figures on there seem pretty messed up the last time i checked. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you have just recently updated the 2008 stats on there, thanks that looks much better now. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Protect the page against vandalism. Please

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)

Human Development Index article

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)

What is wrong with you? Cieloestrellado?

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)

See your Talk page for my response. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 statistical update figures incorrect (from Talk:Human Development Index)

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)

Why don't you take a look at the UNDP source itself? Perhaps the Wikipedia list is incorrect or poorly updated. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

They are NOT incorrect. You can check the UN website, for the 10th time i'm going to tell you to check this page and download the Indicators Table HDI 2008. It has the current ranking and values alongside the previous years values. I spent two days working in those two articles it is the accurate updated information. Before I began to edit this. It was a disaster. Simple examples: Libera was listed in the 2007/2008 report this page said it wasnt because it had a lot of the 2006 report information. Lybia was already in the high development category before the 2007/2008 report and so on. So please keep the information, if you don't trust it, like I said, download the tables and look it up for yourself, but don't simply remove it. Thanks. Tony0106 (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you, but you are wrong. What you are looking at is a revised calculation of the HDI for previous years made by the Human Development Office using the latest estimates available as of November 28, 2008. Read the note in page 28 of the 2008 Statistical Update. It says:

The human development index values in this table were calculated using a consistent methodology and data series. They are not strictly comparable with those in earlier Human Development Reports.

But what this Wikipedia article is reporting is NOT this revised data, but the data originally published in the reports. Take a look at 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). I hope this clears it up for you. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

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)

In my opinion, the current version misleads: the very idea of comparing two reports based on different methods of calculation, is very similar to another person's idea of comparing 2008 report of Nominal GDP, with an old 2007 report of PPP GDP...

Note that the reader is not interested in comparing two reports one of which is based on a wrong (or old-fashioned) method of calculation! Rather, the reader is interested in comparing the correct HDI of different years, so as to know whether a given country has become more developed during the year, or deteriorated in terms of human development; However, the current version presents this kind of comparative informationin in a very misleading manner! For example: the current version makes the reader think that (e.g.) China deteriorated in terms of human development - while it has actually become more developed, and that (e.g.) Lebanon has become more developed - although it actually deteriorated in terms of Human development.

I suggest Tony0106's version as a better version. What do the other readers think? We should get some other opinions here, for resolving our issue in accordance with what the majority thinks. HOOTmag (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

HOOTmag has a point. The situation with the current version is like comparing GNI data with a new data based on GDP method, or comparing nominal GDP data with that of GDP (PPP). Nobody does such things with GNI and GDP, right? And yes, this is very misleading to see China loosing 13 positions and Russia loosing 6 positions in the course of one year. In 2006 China and Russia were among the most quickly developing countries in terms of GDP per capita and they made improvements in health and education as well. There are many other such inconsistencies with reality in the current version. So I vote for Tony0106's version.Greyhood (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

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)

Request for Semi-Protection

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)

Requests can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (WP:RPP) – the {{editsemiprotected}} template is for requesting changes to a page that is semi-protected. —Snigbrook 17:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes in Rank and Comparing different reports

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)

I've just changed the list. --Shibo77 (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

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)

Countries missing from latest report - different sources

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

Hi! 0.229 is a 1993 figure according to answers.com, while 0.345 is a figure published in 2007 according to the UN, so I think we should use the more recent data. --Shibo77 (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree so. 71.170.30.237 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Anon

China's HDI is not 0.781

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)

December 18, 2009???

we are in May

I changed it to read "Dec. 18, 2008...upto 2006" (or something to that effect) which agrees with the main HDI page. As well the ranking of Australia and Canada seem to be switched from the main HDI page, as well as the 2008 statistical update. (Link 1 I think...) Could someone please go through this page and compare it with the official list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.62.25 (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoax?

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)

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/data, under "Statistical Update 2008" Henjeng55155 (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Map colors (extremes)

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)

You might try looking at the colour blind compliant map. It is based on older data, however. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation?

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)

It's the country's articles that are the ones that are not updated. This article has the most current information that the UN. It is most likely that the countries you are mentioning uses older data, that's why there has been discrepancies. I'll start updating the data as a soon as I can. Elockid (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I updated the first 15 countries. I'll try to get some more done when I can. Elockid (talk) 12:08, 10 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)

is good to be good because what must be must be

Every bank need help of customers care please. Let us plan for there 105.112.224.216 (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)