Talk:List of countries by Human Development Index/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

protection

This page has been fully protected for a period of three days. The purpose is to force all involved parties into discussion here, which is what all of you should have been doing instead of constantly reverting each others edits. If you cannot reach a consensus, please pursue a request for comment or other dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

New 2009 report

Article should be updated. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdf Pristino (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

With what? - the 2009 report uses the same 2007 data as used before - there is no new data.216.107.194.166 (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, 2008 report used 2006 data. Next year, 2010 report will use 2008 data. Note that 2009 data will be used just in 2011 report. HOOTmag (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

216.107.194.166, CHECK THE (Personal attack removed) REPORT BEFORE YOU MAKE JUDGMENTS, (Personal attack removed). Henjeng55155 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in changes compared to 2006 data

There are a number of inconsistencies in how the countries have moved up or down in the rankings since the last survey year. For example, Denmark (#16) is supposedly down 2 places, meaning it was 14th last year. Austria is currently 14th, and marked as also having been in 14th in the previous survey. It should be an easy fix to recalculate the changes if someone has the complete, correct data from the previous survey. 145.100.199.87 (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, almost all (if not all) of data in the last column are completely wrong. HOOTmag (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it probably has to do with the fact that the 2006 data for the 2009 report is different from the 2008 report. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The changes in ranking do not correspond to the source UN-report. There, the first five countries remain on their previous rank and the first country with a change are the Netherlands, who jump one position to rank 6. etc. I would suggest to take the source report as a basis for the rank change as well. 91.55.65.161 (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Update Map (2009 data)

Can someone update the map to the new 2009 data? I've noticed e.g. Afghanistan, Niger. Thanks! 91.55.65.161 (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Rank change

The rank changes in the table do not correspond to the original UN report. Wikipedia should be based on the sources, not on previous self-created tables. (perhaps, changes are due to changes in index calculation)

Agreed. I've started the job of correcting this (I'd taken it to be vandalism at first, based on the amount in the article's history) and will continue later based on the position changes listed on tab G of this table (http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_Tables.xls). If someone else wants to continue in the mean time, so far I've only fixed the changes for the "very high" (top 38) countries Procrastinator supreme (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is done. Procrastinator supreme (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A question about geographic territory categories

Currently the countries of the Middle East occur both in the categories of the "Middle East and North Africa" and "Asia and Oceania". As a result Israel, Kuwait and Qatar currently occur in both categories. This bothers me. Does anyone else have a problem with this? One solution would be to change the category "Middle East and North Africa" to just "North Africa" and possibly add another category of "Middle East". Any ideas?

Doug4 06:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, North African countries appear both in the "Africa" and "Middle East and North Africa". Although I undertand why The "Middle East and North Africa" table is interesting, it has nothing to do in a "by continent" listing. We might add a "List of countries by non-continental regions" section in which there could have a "South-East Asia + Oceania", an "European Union" or a "Sub-Saharian Africa" list. I would also separate Asia from Oceania in the "by continent" section.

Gingitsune 1:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingitsune (talk • contribs)

Georgia and Azerbaijan are not listed in the Europe table, while they both are in geographical Europe. Armenia is not physically in Europe, but she is often lumped together with Azerbaijan and Georgia for cultural reason. I don't know if it's better to keep her in or out. Also, Turkey is listed as an European country although only a tiny part is physically on the European part of the continent. Kazakhstan is in the same situation, but she's not listed. Either both in or both out. So, I'll add Georgia and Azerbaijan right away, but I'd like to have other people's opinion on what to do Armenia, Turkey and Kazakhstan.

Gingitsune 1:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I got Turkey out while adding Georgia and Azerbaijan.

Gingitsune 1:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingitsune (talk • contribs)

Turkey is back on the Europe list, so I added Kazakhstan to even things out. I wish they would have left their reasoning here, we'll have to do without. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingitsune (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Vanuatu is pretty close to Australia - so perhaps should not be in the Africa list - but the asian/oceanic one? Vanuatu was the happiest country in the world for 2006 but then disappeared off the list all together for 2009 - perhaps they were upset by the shift into Africa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.118.141 (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Map Colors for Highest and Lowest Ranked Countries are Confusingly Similar

The map illustration included in this article uses extremely dark green for the highest ranking countries and black for the lowest ranking countries. The colors are so similar that they are practically impossible to tell apart. Someone could easily mistake Niger for a well developed country or New Zealand for a low developed one. In the case of New Zealand, I had to look up additional information about the country to find out; I still cannot tell by the map. This is a major flaw in the article and it must be corrected to prevent the inevitable passing on of misinformation. Two other users have suggested color changes in the discussion page for the image so I'm not the only one who finds information on the map difficult to decipher. I'm making my suggestion here instead because that's what the image discussion page says to do. 75.81.193.175 (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You read my mind; I was about to make a new topic just for that. Seconded. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me edit

Please let me edit for 2-3 days, you see it's under construction. That means I'm not finished yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.243.242 (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Why did you change the new HDI data, into old data based on an older report of 2008? The correct data are those of yesterday (8.8.2010), based on the new report of 2009.

Anyway, you've put an "under construction" template, which allows everybody to edit the article, so I'm allowed to edit the article by changing your old data (of the 2008 report) into new data (of the 2009 report). If you don't want anybody to edit the article while you're editing it, you should replace the "under construction" template by an "in use" template. If you do this, nobody will touch the article for several hours.

Eliko (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

What is happening here? Why are the data suddenly changed? They do not fit anymore with the sources. I see that 125.25.243.242 ask for time to edit, but if you don't explain why you are changing data and do not give sources, someone will revert all of your edits.

Please, explain the reason to change the data now and also give the sources. LeQuantum (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Who is "you" you're talking to? I've changed nothing, and I want 125.25.243.242 to revert their version back to the version of yesterday. For more details, see 125.25.243.242's talk page.

Eliko (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have done moving to this. Then I'll add some sources. Once i've find at least 5 reliable sources, I'll move it back.--125.25.39.247 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your "draft" is deleted, but I see a anonymous editor (I think you) make draft under here. I add a references, BTW I'm NOT you, but you live in the same country as me (Thailand, 0.797); but I'm originally from Cambodia 0.609, and are you Thai?--125.25.77.81 (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Draft

Please move this draft to a subpage of a user page. This is not the appropriate place for a draft. If it is not moved, it will be deleted. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus

Since when has Cyprus been part of Asia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.43.193 (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Always. It's located as a sandwich between Egypt and Anatolia (i.e. the Asian part of Turkey). It belongs to the European union though being in Asia. Eliko (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep your eyes peeled

Newer one release on Nov.4!--113.53.213.172 (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

New 2010 report

The 2010 report is now online: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Complete.pdf LeQuantum (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The index feel some much this year, only four countries remind in the above 0.9 category. *shock* I didn't thought the economic part of the index had this much influence. Anyway, if no one uptade the data in the 10 next hours, I'll do the depressing job of downgrading the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingitsune (talk • contribs) 15:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The new report uses a different methodology to calculate the index. It is not possible to compare the new values with the values from the report last year. Instead, you must rely on the index for previous years given in this new report to make comparisons.LeQuantum (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The new report has recalculated the HDI based on the new method for intervals of 5 years since 1970. Based on the new method NZ (for instance) has stayed at 3rd position from 2005 to 2010. It certainly didn't increase 17 spots in a year. It would probably be more appropriate to tabulate the 2010/2005/2000/etc. data and then colour-code it like you see in other index lists such as the Corruption Perceptions Index. Inny Binny (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or does it appear that the data refers to 2010 instead of 2008, which is supposed to be the next year. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 17:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is Cuba? Jmcdon10 (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Its HDI cannot be calculated, as Cuba's GNI is unavailable. Pristino (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the 2010 data should be put in one wikisortable table, not in 8 mini tables. Przemator (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit 4th November 2010

It appears that something odd has happened to the page on the 4th November 2010 by a user with number 125.25.45.45. I'm not sure whether it is appropriate to undo completely or not. --MJLRGS (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Starting on rank 95, the HDI is out of order and countries are duplicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.90.233 (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The data are from 2010 or from 2008?

The article say on the start: This is a list of all countries by Human Development Index as included in a United Nations Development Program's Human Development Report released on 4 November 2010, compiled on the basis of data from 2008. (bold is mine), and in the Complete list of countries say: This revision of the index was released on 4 November 2010 and covers the period up to 2008, but in the tables we can read: 2010 estimates. Perhaps it is necessary to explain or clarify it in the text, because it can to be something confused. Any way ,it is a great work!. Greetings --Furado (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Update

I am considering updating the page with 2010 information, any one support? Sopher99 (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "2010 information"? Could you give us any link, before changing anything in the article? Eliko (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

On further notice I have the date wrong, so my attempt is negligible.

The 2010 update will be released in November. 129.241.124.191 (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

hi, i see that the page is updated, but many data are wrong on the map. this page is better: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/trends/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki521 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Map

The previous map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Human_Development_Report_2009.PNG) was much better than the current one, can anyone make new map with new values?--Giornorosso (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Green and red do not go well together for people suffering from Daltonism. Pristino (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

How to define a developped country according to the 2010 report

I'm lost with the new calculation, there are only three countries above 0.900. chic-ism 15:34 7 novembre 2010 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC).

I've made it clearer in the new version made some minutes ago. Read it now, and if anything is not clear yet, ask. HOOTmag (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It says that countries like the UK have gone up, but they haven't. Last year they were in the 0.900 region! This is weird. --90.206.198.228 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made it clearer in the new version made some minutes ago. Read it now, and if anything is not clear yet, ask. HOOTmag (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is simple, it must be Very High Human Development country as the UNDP states here: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/faq/

HOW ARE THE REGIONAL AND OTHER COUNTRY CLASSIFICATIONS DETERMINED?

"The 2010 Report divides countries into two main groups, developed and developing, based on HDI classification, and shows other key groupings, such as Least Developed Countries, as defined by the United Nations. Countries in the top quartile of the distribution, those with very high HDI, are classified as developed, and the rest as developing. The developed group is further classified into Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) members and non-OECD members (which includes Monaco and San Marino, even though an HDI value is not available), while the developing group is further classified into Arab States, East Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, following UNDP Regional Bureau classifications. "

So by 2010 countries with at least 0.788 HDI are Developed Countries.

kardrak (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 HD Report, p. 139, states clearly how the four categories are divided:

• In the past, HDI classification was based on present cut-off points of HDI values. This year, the classifications are based on quartiles, and denoted: Very High, High, Medium and Low HDI [so that every group should copmrise a quarter of 169 countries, i.e. about 42-43 countries]. Because there are 169 countries, one group must have one more country than others. The High HDI group was assigned the extra country.

HOOTmag (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So, according to the UNDP, 3/4ths of the world's countries are destined to be "developing" forever. The earlier method was much better. The UNDP should have used 0.8 as a new cut-off for developed countries. The big problem with that is that a developed country like Portugal would have been left out of the group and then everybody would have said the new HDI was flawed. My 2 cents. Pristino (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Map is chaotic!

The darkest color on the map should represent all the countries described as a developed countries ( very high hdi), brighter color should represent high hdi countries and so on.The option from the previous map was good too as it splited each category in two and mark the different colors.This map is just big chaos countries like United Kingdom with a very high hdi is marked the same color as Russia and Kazakhstan from the second half of high human hdi (developing countries) list. Its a mess!Can anybody make changes to the map?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.180.164 (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed. New map uses the official categories (very high, high and so on). Pristino (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

HDI world map

Hello there. I believe this map:

World map indicating the countries' Human Development Index in 2010 (Source: 2010 Human Development Report).

> 0.784 (Very High)   0.677–0.784 (High)   0.488–0.676 (Medium)

< 0.488 (Low)   no data

is superior to this map:

World map indicating the Human Development Index by Quartiles (based on 2010 data, published on November 4, 2010)

Very High   High   Medium

Low   data unavailable

The blue to pink to red color scheme is very clear to understand in the first map. In the second map, however, the lowest category (low HDI) is nearly black, completely defeating visual perception and understanding. Both maps use the official categories used by the UNDP in its latest 2010 report to classify countries in very high, high, medium and low groups. What does everyone think? Which map serves the article best? Pristino (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The second map could be suitable too, provided that the black is replaced by white. The logic is simple: a highr HDI has more blue and less white, whereas: a lower HDI has more white and less blue.

On the other hand, the first map has the following logic: a highr HDI has more blue and less red, whereas: a lower HDI has more red and less blue.

Kardrak's original map could have been even better, because it reflects the "formal" map presented by HDI Report, however it has no logic of colors (just as Kardrak's second map mentioned above has no logic of colors, unless the black is replaced by white).

Eliko (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think map with blue to pink scheme is much more clear and understandable and just more logic.Blue to black may be confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.198.105 (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not done. Un-necessary to DAB at this time. DMacks (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by Human Development Index → List of countries by Human Development Index (UNDP) — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC) There are various distributors for Human Development Index. 125.25.71.94 (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is unnecessary. The main and widely used distributor of the HDI is from the UN. I also have not seen any other HDI reports for countries which this article is about used on Wikipedia. So disambiguation is not needed. Furthermore, articles are not typically named after their source. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This map is evil

I want the previous one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.177.208.162 (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A link and rank on the country of each page

I have no experience in editing but there are a large number of countries which don't have a rank next to their HDI values on their respective pages. As most countries are protected, can someone please work on editing some of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.197.246 (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Other edits than the map

I wanted to correct some wrong statements in the Introduction, but the page seems protected for several days. This text:

"It covers 169 UN member states (out of 192). Twenty five UN member states are not included due to lack of data."

would be better if it reads:

"It covers 168 UN member states (out of 192) and Hong Kong. Twenty four UN member states are not included due to lack of data."

since Hong Kong is not a UN member and (192 UN members) - (168 in the list) = (24 UN members not in the list).

Also, I would like to say two comments about the tables:

• I find the column "Change compared to old 2009 values for 2007" a bit ridiculous: it compares ranks from two different methodologies. I am concern that these changes reflect more artificial effects from the change of methodology than "real" changes between countries. The report of 2010 gives in table 2 the HDI and rank changes for previous years using the same new 2010 methodology. Rank changes with the same methodology should be more relevant in this page as almost all readers would be more interested into real improvements or degradations between countries as a artificial effect of a methodology.
• The tables could be merged into a single sortable table. We could add to this table the "raw data" used to calculate the HDI: life expectancy, years of schooling, GNI, etc. This would look like table 1 in the report, so readers could see better the strengths and weaknesses of each country that lead to their HDI and rank. We could add colours in the table to identify to which development category belongs each country. A second advantage is that the 24 UN members without HDI for 2010 could be included in the table with their uncompleted data as listed in table 1.

LeQuantum (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that next December 1 finishes the protection of the article and you will be able already to realize the corrections and the interesting changes that you suggest. --Furado (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Blue map removal

Blue map removed for following reasons:

• In some countries like Nigeria, DRC and Afganistan, borderline is in grey and it is more visible than in other countries. This is an example of a bad processing. It is a very disturbing element.
• Countries dependent territories are left grey, while they should be of the same colour as the country. This is the case of Svalbard, Greenland etc.
• Some countries, such as Papua New Guinea and Madagascar, are badly visible on some screens - the blue is just too light.
• There are many mistakes on the map. Macau is not included in the report, but it is coloured. The same applies to six island countries in the Caribbean and also to some island countries in the Pacific ocean, like Nauru and Marshall islands. Tajikistan is in left in grey, while it is included in the report.
• EDIT: Fiji high-->medium, Sao Tomé low-->medium, Cape Verde low-->medium and probably many more mistakes...
• Brunei is in green. ???

Until the problems are resolved, I remove the map from the article.--90.177.208.162 (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

African countries

I've detected that a lot of the low category of HDI countries, have their HDI marked as medium in their articles instead of low, which is the correct one. Please fix. I've already corrected a few my self. 88.88.126.205 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Poland vs Portugal

why Portugal is ahead of Poland on the list if they both have the same amount of points in their HDI?Alphabetically Portugal should be behind Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.189.117 (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the article indicates rounded values only, while Porugal's exact value turns out to be highr than Poland's one, when considering the fourth digit after the dot. Note that HDI rank is actually determined using HDI values to the sixth decimal point, as indicated here. Compare: Sweden being ahead of Germany, although both of them have the same rounded value, and compare also Hungary and Brunei, and the like. Eliko (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Critique

Certainly some countries and people out there have problems with this HDI concept. I for one think its ridiculous not to calculate the factor of medical services and the health of the natural environment as a key factor. Living in hazardous conditions and then not having access to affordable or quality health care does not help quality of living standards! Certainly the ranking make sense as place to start but to leave out these factors is just silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.5.179 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Error: Belize is not a country of Latin America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.74.36 (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Former reports

Please finish them all and fix, i have no time--DKH2010 (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note on China's HDI (Data for Taiwan NOT included)

The note 5 saying "Includes the data for Taiwan" is wrong. According to the Reader's Guide [3] (page 3), "Data for China do not include Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, Macao Special Administrative Region of China or Taiwan Province of China, unless otherwise noted." Since the data in the main table [4] (page 2) doesn't seem to have a note, we should conclude that the 0.663 HDI for China does not include data for Taiwan. Henjeng55155 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh??!?

What's with the humongous jump? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.245.245 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ireland on top positions?? They're one of the european countries that needed the IMF intervention!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.41.223 (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Turkey

When i checked it last week, Turkey was ranked on 84th, and today it became 15th? (higher then Finland, Belgium, Iceland etc.), any wrong information there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemyildiz (talk • contribs) 05:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan

The lists in the article need to be updated to include South Sudan. Davshul (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they won't be until there is new HDR. --90.177.208.162 (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The report is 2010 for 2008 estimates.

Please somebody must edit the mistakes,or I will.The 2009 report was for data/estimates for 2007.This was was released November 4,2010 and is for 2008 data,NOT 2010! 2010 data won't be published UNTIL the 2012 report.It essentially goes every two years.The 2009 report was for 2007. This fall the 2011 report will be published,BUT for 2009,NOT 2011.

People this is not difficult,just look at the sources.

Someone keeps coming here and publishing disinformation,there IS NO report released June 2011,DESPITE what someone said. Please change this,and any information not covered should be deleted,why mention South Sudam,data for that country won't be published in a good two years the earliest.Every fall a report is released based on data from the previous TWO YEARS!

For example 2011 data won't be known until the 2013 report.

[Please change this soon,or I will change it. Any response to my request is welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElrodeoLover (talk • contribs) 22:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The above post was by me,sorry I forgot to sign.

ElrodeoLover (talk)ElrodeoLover,July 28,2011 —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

It looks like you haven't read the chapter "External links" at the bottom of the article. The report was really released in Nov. 2010, but it was updated in June 2011, by including three additional countries (Cuba, Palau, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories) on the lists. For more details, see the second and third links indicated in the chapter "External links".

Additionally, it also looks like you haven't read the 2010 report itself (issued in Nov 2010), which explains its new methodology for the calculations. One of the differences between the old methodology and the new one, is the very year to which the calculations refer: The old methodology (used in the 2009 report) is intended to reflect data of 2007, whereas the new methodology (used in the 2010 report) is intended to reflect estimates for 2010.

Hope this helps.

HOOTmag (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

File:UN Human Development Report 2010 1.PNG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:UN Human Development Report 2010 1.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Developed vs Developing country

So the cutoff for "developed countries" is a score of 0.784? Where did this come from? This does not seem ridiculous to anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.193.218 (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, because there's no formal cutoff. What there is, is 172 countries, falling into four broad human development categories, each of which comprises 43 countries, as indicated explicitly - in the article itself (see the third section) - and also in the HD Report itself, so the last country belonging to the Developed Country category (as defined in the HD Report) - has to be the 43rd country, doesn't it? This is a simple conclusion, isn't it? Incidentally, this country's score is 0.784. Again, all of this is indicated in the article, as well as in the HD Report. HOOTmag (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Canada

Why The Canada in 2 year It change and decrease by 4 postion I want an explication and logical. I dont know why but I think someone cheated the reporte Because its becrease by almost 0.111 in 2 year. Its almost impossible. I want a report in the next 7 day or Ill do the work by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.137.54 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please try to type properly, so other ones can understand you. Jetro (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Libya vs. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

Up to 2012-2013 (there is a 2-year lag between data collection and publishing) the Libyan rankings are actually for the "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya". This is of utmost importance, not only for the flag depicted in this page, but because it signifies a deep regime change, both politically and economically, similar to what happened in 1991 in Eastern Europe. The same applies to an hypotethical page on "HDI rankings up to 1992 depicting current flags for countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Mongolia, Libya, a.s.o..

Is this enough to put the 1977 flag on this page? At least there should be a note on the matter, because many people assume the rankings are produced "in real time" which lead to erroneous conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.20.249 (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no longer a "lag" in HDI estimates. They are published for the current year. Pristino (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked, and there is indeed a lag (maybe now only 6 months). The report for 2011 presents Lybia as the "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", along with 1977 flag. Putting the current flag leads people to associate the 10 place drop on ranking as a result of the civil war, when in truth it happened before the civil war already.

Comparing 2011 HDR with 2010 HDR results

The 2011 Human Development Report is very clear: The ranking and results for this year (2011) cannot be compared with 2010 HDR ranking and results! The methodology is totally different, so that's why the 2011 HDR provides new data for 2010 and the years before (instead of using the presented in 2010 HDR). So why the article still compares results using both reports? For example, according to the 2011 HDR, Norway (1st place) had an index result of 0.943 and in 2010 (using 2011 methodology!) the index was of 0.941. So this means Norway HDI index grew 0.002 between these two years (not 0.005 as showed). This is because the ranking is placing some countries with strong changes and measured wrongly, in my opinion, a huge mistake producing misleading information. I propose to use 2011 methodology for all the comparative columns (if data are needed, I propose to use this table). --JorgeRodriguez (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My fault. I just took both reports and put the script to run (to generate the tables) instead of read it (I was not expecting a new change in the methodology). I updated the list, so please review it once again. Giro720 (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, It it said in the text that Albania is one of the few countries that got upgraded to the "high income countries" group. At the same time, it it shown in the "list over all.." that Albania decreased 6 spots from last year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.18.230 (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Very High HDI Nations pie graph should be updated

Need to be updated with the Latin American Region including Chile and Argentina portions. Addlertod05 (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

New 2011 HDI out

Article should be updated. New 2011 index is out: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Table1.pdf Pristino (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Full report: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2011/download/en/
• Tables: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/

This article should be uptdate it soon!! 5 more countries were added to the Very High Human Development Index.. Meaning that Chile, Argentina and Croatia are now considered "developed countries".--Vrysxy! (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is the old map. 178.59.154.78 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Something went wrong. Croatia and Barbados should also be in "very high" section: Croatia is 46th, Barbados 47th. Estonia, Latvia and some other countries are missing from list.--Nikola Štuban (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. Giro720 (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You put the wrong updates. You have to put table 1. Table 2 is the trend table not the real hdi.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong updates!!

Most of the increase in index is wrong for instance Ghana had way more increase and its 2010 index was way low than what is being updated. Who updated this? Almost nothing matches with the 2010 data. please fix it.

According to Table 2, Ghana inscrease 1 position, from 0.533 to 0.541 (diff. of 0.008). So this data in the list is correct. Giro720 (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You are putting the wrong table. Table 2 is the hdi index trend table. you must put table 1.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The value of HDI for the year 2011 is the same in both table. As pointed by JorgeRodriguez in the section above, we have a new methodology in this report, so we can't compare these values with those from 2010 report. That's why the trend table is used for this kind of data. Giro720 (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if you cant compare 2010 values you should also not mislead people with the change in index value column then. As that is a comparison of 2010 values. Please remove the change column.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You can compare, provided that you use the new 2011 data for 2010 as well as for 2011. Anyways, this comparison has already been made - in the new HD report itself, on page 178 (i.e. on the page coming before the last page of the report), so why shouldn't Wikipedia copy this comparison from the new report itself? HOOTmag (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! Agreed with Hootmag. If Giro is not able to, then we should ask an expert to update this because as of now the page is giving wrong information.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It was alread done (ten days ago). The comparision in this list is the one from page 178. If you find anything that don't match it, just tell us =). Giro720 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

New map

World map indicating the Human Development Index (based on 2010 data, published on November 4, 2010)

0.900 and over   0.850–0.899   0.800–0.849   0.750–0.799   0.700–0.749

0.650–0.699   0.600–0.649   0.550–0.599   0.500–0.549   0.450–0.499

0.400–0.449   0.350–0.399   0.300–0.349   under 0.300   Data unavailable

This map is clearly better than the blue map: it is more detailed and the same map was here before the blue map appeared.--Giornorosso (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason why that map is less suitable than the blue to white map is shown above.Quartile maps were attached to every article about hdi in previous years so theres no reason to change that just for 2010 report.--62.40.60.242 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You lie. The colored map has been always attached to this article, it is the quartile map that appeared just recently.--Giornorosso (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The colored map is absolutely not logic, theres too many categories and the color scheme is chaotic.Scheme should be from the brightest to the darkest colour or something similar not to confuse the readers.I think that compromise can be reached on this just as it was on the HDI article what i mean is quartile map that shows the countries from a broader easier to compare perspective first and then detailed map.Waiting for opinions of other users.--95.83.193.28 (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This map does not fit to the source and does not continue the criterion of four divisions established in Human Development Report of this year (it even can be problematic for the daltonics). Yes, this map shows more divisions, but not, it is not more detailed, because the current division has no logic because it does not show the current division of the index and I believe that it is clear that the article must show the four groups of the report and not the criterion that we like. --Furado (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You forget that the distribution by the UN is also arbitrary: 4 groups of countries of the same size. This map shows much more divisions and therefore is more detailed. The blue map for example shows China alongside Congo in the middle tier and that gives you false image. Also, this map has been here for some 3 years and no one complained.--212.96.186.223 (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Multicoloured map is very confusing and is not showing the actual divisions established in report.Its very hard to compare the countries and regions and also to understand which countries represent similar level of development.As it was mentioned by user Furado the multicoloured map cause a problem for the daltonics.China is marked with the same colour as Kongo basically just becouse it can be find in the same subgroup of countries, thats the reality not a false image.Accept the facts how they are.--95.83.193.28 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not confusing, but rather simple to understand. I guess that was the reason why it has been here for all the time. Color-blind compliant map was also part of it, I dont know if it was also made for this version of the map.--212.96.186.223 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me 212.96.186.223, but I forget nothing. I can read clearly in the article: "This is a list of all countries by Human Development Index as included in a United Nations Development Program's Human Development Report released on 4 November 2010" and it shows the information of this report.

Which is the criterion for the division that you propose? Why there is a division in the World between a HDI 0.550-0.599? or between 0.800-0.849? I have read thoroughly the article and do not see this division criterion for any side. You say that this map is more detailed because it has more divisions. No, absolutely no. Also, if more divisions do that it is more detailed, why we do not set more: Why 15 divisions? why not 30?, or better even, why not 50? Like that it would be, according to you, more detailed. More divisions simply make it more confused because they do not fit to any criterion of HDI division.

On the other hand, the division in four groups is not arbitrary. Please, read the report and you will see because it splits this way. But, although the division was not the best, the article is on Human Development Report 2010 and it has to show a map in accordance with this report, not on your opinion or mine. --Furado (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As a Chinese, I don't care the map. Because the data of China is total wrong. The author of report don't believe PRC gov, so they just use some stranger garbage or several years before data. E.g. Expected years of schooling of Chinese is about 12.8 years, but these great authors just say "I don't believe it, I must use more beautiful data". So the list is b*** s**t, and please forget the map.121.37.38.2 (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think its clear that four divisions need to be shown on the map as there are four divisions in the HDI report.Thats why blue to white map is better than multicoloured one.As it was mentioned there is no 15 divisions theres only 4 and that have to be on the map to make it understandable and just to make sense!map that shows 15 different divisions make no sense whatsoever.--89.204.202.238 (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The blue to white map indeed shows four divisions in the HDI report, but that is not enough. The coloured map shows much more differences, although they cross the borders of the cathegories from HDI report (e.g. that 2 different countries with high and medium levels of human development can be shown in the same color on the map). It could be useful to make some adjustments like dividing all levels of development into 4 colours, so that there would be 16 different colours in total. --90.177.208.162 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 90.177.208.162 but did I mis something??Is Hdi report since the last report dividing all countries in the 16 groups or just 4?I dont think that u fully understand the whole divisions scheme, two countries one with medium and other with high HDI cannot in ANY WAY be marked with the same colour!whole concept of that report is to shows 4 groups of countries which represents very similar level of developement thats why multicolour map is not helpful here.It is basically not showing that groups i think if creators of HDI wanted to show 16 groups they would start with very very very high hdi and finish with very very very low hdi...would it make any sense??--95.83.207.43 (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is you who doesnt understand the concept of HDI. The divisions are of no importance, the authors of the report just wanted to facilitate orientation in the report - by dividing it into quartiles. I proposed to retain the quartiles, however, only to divide each quartile into 4 parts in order to make the map as detailed as possible. I dont have any problem with this map. Overlapping poses no problem here. The divisions are absolutely not important. In pre-2009 reports there were only 3 divisions - high, medium and low. Do you think it changed anything? No, the order is important, not the artificial cathegories.--90.177.208.162 (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Suggestion to Add SAARC countries

Suggestion to add SAARC Countries into the "List of countries by non-continental region" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asian_Association_for_Regional_Cooperation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Classification

I do not understand the whole thing. Looking on: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/103106.html

It's clear there are: 16 countries : Very High 52 countries : High 87 countries : Medium 19 countries : Low

I don't understand the current interpretation on quartiles. Moreover it makes countries like Cuba and Romania on the hedge to be at the Very High index of development. Is this sound? --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nepal data is weird

In the first part of the article is listed Nepal as "Very High HDI" with more than 0.9, yet Nepal is also listed as "lowest HDI" with 0.46 in Asian countries section. One of them, if not both, is surely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.227.75 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandal reverted. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Turkey and Kazakhstan

I request to move those two countries to the asian stats as they are asian countries, not European. ····

Both Turkey and Kazakhstan have territory in Europe, therefore they are European states as well as being Asian states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed India from "East Asia and Oceania" section

India is a part of South Asia, not East Asia. This might not seem like the strongest case for removal, but Bangladesh, which has a lower HDI than India, was not part of the 10 lowest countries for East Asia and Oceania HDI while India was. This is a clear contradiction. In fact, if India is included then not only Bangladesh but maybe Pakistan should be as well. However, I don't think any of them should be included as they are not part of the region of "East Asia." I think Nepal could possibly be removed as well (and maybe even Bhutan), as Nepal, and to a lesser extent Bhutan, are more closely linked to South Asia as well. However this is more tenuous. Still, the India-Bangladesh paradox cannot be ignored - either both of them is included, or neither is. And I don't think it makes sense to call either one "East Asia."

Keepssouth (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

2009-2010

What on earth is going on here, the scores change a lot, the ranks change a lot....but the rank change are given as 'unchanged'. 92.15.72.117 (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rank-order column (1,2,3) could be static and separate

Rank-order column (1,2,3) for the long tables could be static and separate. See Help:Sorting#Initial alphabetical sort versus initial sort by rank order. See the section about adding a separate, static rank column (1,2,3) next to a table. This makes the table easier to update.

It also allows you to add a sort button for the countries column. Then people could find a country much faster since the sort button would put the countries in alphabetical order. Of course you would have to put the long table in one long list and not 2 lists side by side. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan's data and ranking have been corrected by HDR office. I've corrected them in the artice as well (incl. sources). HOOTmag (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

2012

Isn't the 2012 report available to be added here yet? It is past the 2 november already -- 85.225.50.205 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess there will be no 2012 report. The next report will probably be launched in 2013. Note that there was no 2008 report either, although a "statistical update" (rather than a full "report") was published in December 18, 2008. HOOTmag (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Also see the new chapter I've just added to our article: Human Development Report, about the 2013 report. HOOTmag (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Estonia

Can somebody change the color of Estonia on multicolor map? It should be the same shade of green as Lithuania and Latvia but now its the same as Finland which is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.10.214 (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for notify it! — ★ Nacho ★ ★ 23:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Council of Europe

Kazakhstan is not part of the Council of Europe so it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.35.195 (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done ★ Nacho ★ ★ 01:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

East Asia& Pacific

India, Bangladesh, and Nepal are not part of East Asia and Pacific, and even if it is Bangladesh should also be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.35.195 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done ★ Nacho ★ ★ 01:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Change compared between 2012 data and corrected 2010 data

This column confuses me. Is is the change in score compared with the 2010 data score? I have the 2012 and 2010 data open to compare scores and nearly every value in this column is incorrect. Pick any country, eg. Maldives ; 2010 score = 0.661, 2012 score = 0.688 so the change is 0.027 but the value stated in the column is 0.005. Am I missing something? If this column is incorrect then I am happy to change all the values, it also looks like some of the rank change values in brackets are wrong. (eg. Ireland) Feel free to remove this post of I have missed something and I'm being an absolute idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Automatik Glacier (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Georgia is not in the Middle East

Georgia it isn't in North Africa either.97.80.178.90 (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that it is not in Africa, but depending on how the Middle East region is defined, Georgia may or may not be included in the region. See: Greater Middle East, Mediatech492 (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Error regarding Cyprus

Cyprus is mistakenly listed as an Asian state in the "by continent" list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.3.168 (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No error. Cyprus is really in Asia (see Cyprus), although it's an EU member. HOOTmag (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Croatia

Could you add Croatia to European Union list in the "List of countries by non-continental region" section, since Croatia became 28th EU state on the 1st July 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.215.93 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The article indicates that the HDI data are estimates for 2012. Croatia was not an EU member then. HOOTmag (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

America ranking

As an American citizen I am confused as to how America can be listed as number three on the HDI list. Interestingly enough when America is added up they don't include Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Guam. To me that would make a difference. Tom991 (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The stats listed in the article are from the annual United Nations Human Development Report. The report explains its methodology in calculating the stats listed and is generally considered accurate and reliable by all participating nations.

Mediatech492 (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2014

Cyprus is not in Asia & Oceania (Check the top 10 HDI list in this region) 94.173.12.248 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

I want to edit ur website 123.176.113.230 (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2014

124.253.9.252 (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Hdi of Russia is .788 ie it should be between Romania and Kuwait. currently it is wrongly placed

Fixed. Thanks. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2014

124.253.34.9 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2014

Could someone update the HDI for Puerto Rico? Since the UNDP does not include Puerto Rico, all there is available are independent estimates. The one in this article is outdated. The latest estimate for 2012 Puerto Rico HDI is 0.865, and it would rank Puerto Rico as #29. The source is the following: An Approximation of Puerto Rico's Human Development Index (Forthcoming), Ricardo R. Fuentes-Ramírez, Caribbean Studies Journal. 2601:6:4000:4B1:B97E:AFFC:2CE9:EFBE (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume from the (Forthcoming) in the title, that it has not yet been published? If that is the case, it is not verifiable, so does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. Arjayay (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 20

In the title of high HDI in Asia and Oceania, one of those countries is not a part of Asia and Oceania but a part of Europe (Cyprus). 212.50.112.224 (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - This is a UN report, and they (and many other bodies), consider Cyprus part of Asia, as in this UN list of continents - Arjayay (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Cyprus is the only country in the European Union (and in the Euro Zone), which is not located in Europe (but rather in Asia). Note also that our article Cyprus considers Cyprus to be in Asia. Note also that the three Caucasian countries Armenia Georgia and Azerbaijan, belong to the Council of Europe (As for Armenia, it is definitely an Asian country. As for Georgia and Azerbaijan, they are probably in Asia). HOOTmag (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia

the wrong map of russia

where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.208.77 (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)