Talk:Human Development Index/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Human Development Index. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Extrapolated?

Heres a Question, if the index was developped in 1990, how was this Index Calculated from 1980 to 1990 ? Perhaps someone could explain it?Ghilz 19:36, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Presumably because the index is just a collection of weighted figures, and these figures were available in previous year. I'd say that these years were calculated retrospectivly. X— Preceding unsigned comment added by210.10.239.93 (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2004

Distribution of Income

QUESTION ON INDEX

Does the index measure for the distribution of income?

Such as Gini-coefficient, etc ?

Yes, Gini-coefficient is used in the index, but my (perhaps subjective) impression is, that it's NOT weighted enough... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.108.15(talk) 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, it can be argued that the Gini-coefficient is overweighted (i.e., it should be ignored entirely). It is unclear that a flat income distribution is, a priori, valuable in any sense other than as a means of assuaging envy. Wikiant (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, that is your subjective "arguing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.106.108 (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the article itself the Gini-coefficient is not in the HDI calculation, the only measure of wealth is raw GDPpc.83.67.47.239 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I need HDI from 1990-2004

I've already checked the UNDP website I can't find the HDI values for 1990-2003.

I have already found some years' values (1998,1999,2001,2002) but not all. Can someone please help me with this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamito (talk •contribs) 17:16, 10 December 2004

Re: Locating HDI numbers

For the above and anyone else interested, there are numbers for the HDI going back until 1990, excluding 1991 and 1996 -- I have no idea why there are no numbers for those years. You can also get retroactively calculated numbers at five year intervals back until 1975 for many countries. The bad news is that you'll need to extract these numbers from the Human Development Global Reports, located on the UNHDR site.

These may be found here.— Precedingunsigned comment added by 24.30.93.207 (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2005

I cannot seem to find the actual indices for 2000 and earlier. --Baryonic Being 11:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Erm... Nigeria is not a Latin American country (or am I reading it wrong?)

Someone trying to put Nicaragua, evidently, which is the 118th nation in the list.

Top 50; bottom 15

Can I ask what's wrong with having more than the top 30 and more than the bottom 10? If you want to keep it as a 'summary', and you don't want it to become a full listing, then surely it should be balanced out at something like top 20 and bottom 20? --Baryonic Being 09:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

It needlessly bloats the article. Plus, having the top 30 is to compare it with the approximately 30 developed countries referenced.—Cantus…☎ 10:42, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. I knew there'd be a good reason. --Baryonic Being 10:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we could make another article such as List of countries by Human Development Index, (or List of countries by HDI), since there's already a List of countries by income equality. -Mariano 08:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Bloats the article? I disagree, the article is pretty short to begin with. Having a top 30 and bottom 10 is just too arbitrary... it makes more sense to have the whole 177. Coffee 21:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Personally, I think it prudent to include only the top and bottom 10 countries; having an 'endless' list' detracts from what is an already concise article. Thus, I curtailed the top list present ... but: I created a complete list of countries, colour-coded map and legend. Whatyathink? Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 09:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

UNITED KINGDOM / Ireland

In the top 30 list, UK is listed at 12 and Ireland at 10, but in the top/bottom 3 lists by continent, the UK is listed in place of Ireland and indicated to be at position 8. One of these must be wrong, though I don't know which. (Actually looking at it now, I guess neither should be listed since either is actually in place 4 and should not be in a top 3 list)

VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template?

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:

(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)

Adult Literacy Index

The equation to get ADI on the page says " (ADR - 0)/(100 - 0) ". Are the zeroes not a bit redundant? Batmanand 07:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi; I think you're right! The 0s would appear to be redundant for the ADI and, as well, Gross Enrollment Index (GEI). I'll edit this, if there are no objections ... E Pluribus Anthony 08:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again! Upon second glance at the UN HDI 2005 technical notes; p. 341 et al.; the 'extra' zeroes – while apprently redundant – are included in the formulae/examples used; thus, the 0s should stay and the changes have been reverted (thanks, Cantus!). There you go! E Pluribus Anthony 22:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine if they are meant to be there then they should stay. Just seemed odd to me on first reading... Batmanand 11:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The zeros are there because the general formula used to make the index fit in the 0,1 range is Xindex=(X-MinX)/(MaxX-MinX), where X is the relevant characteristic, MinX is the minimum value X can take on, MaxX is the maximum value the variable can be (i.e. they can change over time). Same reason why that log(40000)-log(100) is there.radek 23:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There's been some edits removing the zeros or rewriting the 85-25 as 60. I understand why - perhaps a note about how raw numbers are transformed into a (0,1) index should be put into the article. See my comment above. If there's no objections I will add it in.radek 23:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know how the Adult Literacy Rate is calculated for countries who's census does not track Adult Literacy, like the US?

I believe they do track Adult Illiteracy, then just subtract it from the 15+ population (at least that's the case for Mexico).133.6.138.192 (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Should we not insert a pro and cons or criticism section? Like why the index does not use the gini coefficient... I don't know much about it but that the kind of stuff I had liked to learn. PierreWiki 4:44, Oct 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Forgive my tardiness in responding (this question has been on my radar since it was posed). I would support including a critical section regarding the HDI, so long as criticisms are from citable sources. If thevote to include the HDI in the country infobox is any indication, many users may have bias towards or against this measure of human development. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 01:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The lack of reflexion in this article is remarkable. Responses, interpretations, criticism, alternatives, cultural and political significance will have to be covered in order for it to become comprehensive. 16 January 2006

Anyone can criticise anything. The point: it isn't problematic to include criticism in the Wp article if it is sourced and can beverified. Unfortunately, the recent addition was neither. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that certain criticisms do not necesseraly need to be sourced, because they are only logical, since we have the formula of the indicator. For example, the HDI does not take into account a lot of things like the structures in place, freedom of speech, the legislation, the corruption, ... And that is why its creator called it a "vulgar indicator". I think that this type of comment has its place on this WP page. | by Casual User on September 3, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.235.253 (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The comment that the statement about lacking sub-national data HDI is untrue is incorrect. For this to be untrue, the HDI would have to systematically include sub-national data elements every time. Doing it occasionally is not sufficient and therefore validates the original criticism. It's obvious that the comment was provided by someone linked to the UN who took offence to the comment. Dagobert | 18:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by213.55.78.226 (talk)

Bottom 10

May I ask why Chad is in the bottom ten twice? — Iggy Koopa 20:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

scale instead of a mere ranking

A graphic showing the huge disparities would be more informative than a ranking.

Distribution of HDI values

Out of the history of this article, I noticed that some editors would like to pay some attention to the distribution of the HDI values (how often do certain HDI values occur/how many countries have a higher/lower HDI value then…etc.). Textual it was ones included in the article as follows:

In the first 21 positions there is a gradual drop from 0,936 to 0,928, followed by a somewhat faster drop to 0,878 for position 30 and another gradual drop to 0,720 at position 107. After that, there is an intermittent rapid drop to 0,281 at the lowest position of 177. Note that until position 107 there is an average drop of about 0,002 points per position. Below that the drop is much higher at 0,007 per position.

With a request to make a graph to ‘illustrate the point’, which could look like this:

Does any of this contribute something to this article, or maybe in List of countries by Human Development Index, or doesn’t it add much, and we should keep it out of the article? Any thoughts? --Van helsing 09:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have nixed both the text and the graph; however, the former is an original analysis without cited basis (no matter how well-intentioned or routed it is in mere statistics), and the latter is unclear (e.g., what do the green bars to the right represent?) and not very informative. Such information might be useful if sources are cited and we can verify relevant content. Until then ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The green bars are called a histogram (occurrence of HDI values with respect to each other, 3 peaks visible). The chart is based on the Excel data linked on the Human Developments Reports website [1]. If the chart is unclear, would you have suggestions for improvement? --Van helsing 15:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I know what the bars are called, but it is wholly unclear what they represent. Labels would help, but they would do little to increase the utility of this graph. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If the purpose of this chart is not obvious enough for the reader, then I think you’re right that the article would not benefit from its inclusion.--Van helsing 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Vatican City?

Can anyone provide an estimation of the Vatican City's HDI? -- Toytoy 08:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would Vatican City (The Holy See) be included? It isn't a member state of the United Nations, it is only an observer.Mattrix18 19:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What is link to the misleadingly named Freedom House, a US-based CIA joint dealing in propaganda and promotion of "US interests" doing on a page with a claim to any objectivity? What does Freedom House have to do with Human Development Index?

"The whole motive behind this index is to bash the U.S.A (only #12) and lift up countries with socialist/soacial democratic ideologies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by129.112.109.253 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Good for you that you know so precisely what the motive behind that list is. To me it looks like establishing which countries get it a little more right and others who get it a little more wrong. Not everything in this world is done to glorify or bash the USA. There are lots and lots of other aspects in this world! This list is a lot more useful than Forbes' rich list which is an insult to most of the world. Who needs to know how many billions xyz made last year? Donald Duck's uncle Dagobert would be the only one! 121.209.51.37 (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, no, that's just stupid. It's derived from a mathematial formula which meausures things that make perfect sense in figuring out the best places to live. You're jsut over-patriotic and paranoid.

Israel:

Israel is an European country. It cannot be classified as Asia. If so, then someone needs to decide what continent israel is in... seriously... it can't be Europe, Africa and Asia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by65.102.142.220 (talk • contribs) 23:00, June 25, 2006 (UTC)

Israel is in Asia.Mattrix18 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The entry for Israel in the Africa top 3 is clearly a mistake. It should be Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (58) in that position. I don't know how to fix it properly as I'm new!

Top/bottom three countries for asia

Obviously, that means there should be six asian countries listed, why do I see seven? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.102.166 (talk •contribs) .

Because this is one article that is being affected by a pro-Taiwan edit warrior. Thanks for spotting it. Andjam 00:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

2005 DHI is wrong here

The version on spanish has the real ranking... the version here on english is raelly wrong. Argentina is listed 107, but on the document from the ONU Argentina is listed 34. Here Brasil 34, but Brasil is really 63!

Thanks. PS: I dont change it, because i dont know how... PS2: I've fixed it... Argentina is back on 34 and fixed the positions for Guyana y Bolivia, there were mixed.

Patriotism

It seems as if a lot of people are trying to change things in this article based on patriotic passions, rather than what the figures really are. Yes, it must be embarrassing to have a nation outside the top 30, but the facts are the facts. Perhaps rather than trying to insert point-of-view arguments, one should instead go and visit some of the top 30 nations to see why they really are in the top 30. Mattrix18 19:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan(ROC) may be taken into consideration of the top 30 countries, but we should'nt distrub the orgional fact of ranking ....Yaoyu

Yeah, and it looks like some Dane has chosen to move his country to 1st place, and move Norway down to 15th, I've fixed it though. I thought the Scandinavians all stuck together or at least thats what Eurovision taught me.

Wrong Index

I was who fixed it before today, but it has benn changed wrongly again. So i registered for 1st time here on Wikipedia to help to provide correct data (sorry, my english isnt really good).

The index for Sudamerica is worng, the complete info is available at: http://hdr.undp.org/ and the Ranking at: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf

This is the real info: 34-Argentina 0.863 63-Brasil 0.792 107-Guyana 0.720 113-Bolivia 0.687

I hope you will correct this. pdrpdr 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

GNP or GDP

For the part about income the Wiki states that UNDP uses GNPpc ppp. I however remember that our lecturers told us they use GDPpc ppp and on UNDP sites they mention GDP as well. For instance in the footnote for Luxembourg's income per capita onthis page. Besides that it says GDP in the text above as well.

the letest news is that

GDP Index

Can someone explain to me the GDP Index. I dont understand how to use it :S

What's to explain? You plug in a country's GDP per capita into the formula. It's just a standardization to transform a number that can range from 0 to infinity to an index that ranges from 0 to 1.radek 21:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh thanks that really helped. not. just give me an example of how to do it. like take one country's GDP per capita and show me an example

Umm, dude, if you want help then learn some manners. And it's not that hard. Figure it out yer own self.radek 02:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhh dude, im 13. not a straight A student in UNI!

Manners would still help.

Fine then. Can you please show me an example of how to use the GDP Index? I don't understand it.

The formula is much more complex than merely "plugging in a country's GDP" into an equation. In fact, numerous PhD theses have been written on this topic, and the formula has changed over the years. It is an all-encompassing metric, including quality of life, average life expectancy, productivity and more. Of course he would need help understanding it. Radeksz -Your rude demeanor and short temperament are why many people don't contribute to Wikipedia. To the 13 year old who was asking how to use this formula, you'll have to have someone explain it to you in-depth, not on a Wikipedia talk page. -Keenada (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

STILL CONFUSING GRAPHIC

What is the YEAR to which this graphic refers, and has it been corrected following previous comments? The graph should have a caption indicating the year.--Mack2 12:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, this image is incompatible with red-green colorblindness. Consider using texture/pattern and colors of different luminance 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! The year of the graphic reflects the year of the index (2004) which appeared in this year's UN HDR report (2006); last year's was similar. Beforehand, I also mixed this up.

From what I gather, the colour scheme that was adopted to help identify countries with high, medium, and preferably low HDIs (red, yellow, green) was intended to be a logical one that harks of those used in a stop light. The colours are also used in each of the country infoboxes, and many of the maps in Wikipedia use similar colour schemes. There appears to be little discussion regarding colourblind-friendliness, though; I believe the current scheme works as is and, given the above, a texture/pattern would not. Perhaps (if necessary) an alternate map can be created, but I think the main maps should remain as is. Psychlopaedist 09:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have altered the maps so that they are distinguishable by people with red-green colour vision deficiency such as myself. Note that traffic lights are only distinguishable to colour-blind people because the lamps are Top-Middle-Bottom, not because they are red/yellow/green, so any defence of traffic light colours is only relevent if the colours have a defined fixed position, which in this map's context they do not. Red-green colour vision deficiency affects up to 1 in 12 Europid Caucasian ("white european") males, whereas blue-types of colour vision deficiency affects less than 1 in a million people. Therefore I have re-coloured the map to use a Blue / Yellow / Other scheme, as I do not believe the graphic is large enough to allow detail to be distinguishable by textures or luminance alone. For more information see colour blindness. The issue of the possibly incorrect year label on the top map is still to be addressed. Andrew Oakley 10:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

2006 Stats are OUT

edit soon?

http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/4150/ra1on6.jpg http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/4150/ra1on6.jpg http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/4150/ra1on6.jpg http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/4150/ra1on6.jpg

not yet released online, but in magazine form

Slovakia?

As Slovakia is a member nation of prominence within the European Union, I find it strange that Slovakia is not on this index as well. In addition, the map designates Slovakia as a nation with medium HDI. However, if you looked at Slovakia's Policy Statement of the Government of the Slovak Republic (no direct linking allowed, search on Google, sorry), you would see that Slovakia doesn't have things such as human rights violations or poor people dying on the street due to malnutrition, etc etc. Therefore Slovakia should not be colored yellow on that map. Does anyone see this too?--neilthecellist 18:12, 8 November 2006

Slovakia pops up in List of countries by Human Development Index at number 42 overall. It's not in the list in this particular article because it's not in either the top or bottom three countries in Europe. Also, I don't think Slovakia is colored yellow on the map... it seems to be pretty green to me. Am I looking at the wrong country? --Zonath^Yak 06:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe my knowledge of European geography fails me. I've taken Advanced Placement European History but... I'm pretty sure Slovakia is yellow colored on this one, or perhaps I'm wrong... doubts are in my head now.... neilthecellist 20:43 9 December 2006 GMT -8 hours (Pacific Time)

Slovakia is directly south of Poland, and appears to be green on the map. --Zonath^Yak 07:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Slovakia is definitely coloured green on the map. All of the EU member states, including Romania and Bulgaria, have high human development and are hence coloured green.

Ronline ✉08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you used a map with data from 2005? Why not use data from 2006? What I find odd is that Montenegro is included on that map, although it did not exist in 2005. --Danutz

Ok, I confirmed, you guys were right, the republic of Slovakia is not where I thought it was. But in any case, is this map really outdated?--neilthecellist

Spam

It would seem as though someone has spammed on this actual page, i will attempt to delete it Yakshavings

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.

[2]

[3] (pdf)

-- ran (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the latest figures for the Republic of China and for Macau SAR are from the year 2003. Please do not rank them together with the figures from 2004, which are given in this article.

Please don't lengthen the top-30 list any more, we have a List of countries by Human Development Index article that lists all of the countries.

Finally, please note that South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore are considered developed countries / territories. -- ran (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you want to add the figures, please don't remove the arrows and rank changes.. -- ran (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

69.236.xx.xx: Okay, this has got to be the fourth, fifth time I've asked you to come to here and discuss your changes. I don't agree with your changes and I've given my reasons, yet you refuse to discuss. Instead, you keep on reverting to your old version with no reasons given at all.

Please, come here and discuss. It's a crucial part of contributing to Wikipedia.

-- ran (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your report doesn't show the HDI points of the countries and only shows the arrows and bars,how is anybody suppose to know the HDI points without going to another page?!I suggest that you also place the HDI points in the ranks as well,plus I have checked the UN website and edited my mistakes,and yet you still confirm that I'm wrong!--69.236.xx.xx

Don't delete the comments of other people.

I've already put the points in for you. But don't remove the rankings. The List of Countries doesn't give ranking changes; this is the ONLY article where ranking changes are given. When you remove them, you are removing information from all of Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you've re-checked the UN figures, and I can see that you're not putting the wrong figures anymore. However, please also take note of my other points, including what I said about:

not expanding the list on this page
not adding rankings for Taiwan and Macau based on misaligned years
and not changing the phrasing in the part about developed and developing countries.

f you disagree with anything I said, please raise it here, don't just ignore my attempts to discuss. -- ran (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor vandalism

141.149.176.238 deleted the USA from the stats of top 3 & bottom 3 countries of North America. Minor, but it should be noted. --Sarah 23:15, 27 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan not in Europe

There's an inconsistency in the top of countries with the lowest index by continent. Azerbaijan is listed as being in Europe, altough this map of Asia:http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:LocationAsia.png (compare with this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Europe_location_AZN2.png) and what I remember from geography class clearly say it's not. (Sorry for the messy links, I don't know my way around editing wiki well enough yet). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.226.7.11 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Do we need these lists?

Hello, I've just finsished adding these nice tags to the article, (use of colour = good article) but do we actually need these lists? I'm sure there's something about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate publisher of data (whatever). After all, there is already an article dedicated to the rankings. Deepdreamer 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I say get rid of it and make the link to the page devoted to ranking more prominent. Nom DeGuerre 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

puerto rico not included?

It's part of the USA and covered by the census, no? Potatoswatter 03:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the US census typically treats puerto rico separately, And the UN does not collect data from Puerto Rico. I will research this. I believe it should be noted as one of the countries not represented in HDI.Mad05963 06:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thx for the research... can you provide a ref? Potatoswatter 06:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the http://hdr.undp.org/ UN Development Program (UNDP) which is basically the official ranking body for HDI, Puerto Rico does not report statistics to it, and ranking/calculation of HDI is only done for special reports, see earthwatch UNEP http://islands.unep.ch/CSV.htm Also see UNEP Globalis http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/country.cfm?country=PR&indicatorid=0 notice the absence of Puerto Rico statistics. Looking at the census page (anyone else think the census website is confusing?) The census maintains separate statistics just for puerto rico and repeatedly notifies when the stats from Puerto Rico are included in a report or if they are not one example is this page of the US Census looking into the Hispanic Population, notice the disclaimer that it does not include information from Puerto Rico, only Hispanics in the United States.http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic.html I'm not sure if any of this helps.Mad05963 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what matters is whether the US includes PR in the statistics relevant to HDI which get reported to the UN. PR isn't going to interact with the UN no matter what, because they're 100% under the auspices of the US. According to the CensusFAQ, the CDC computes life expectancy - but that's just life expectancy. I ran out of attention span before finding a definitive answer, but all in all, it would be dishonest to leave out 3 million people certainly under the sovereign governance (including census and CDC, whether stats are separate or not) of the US, and the UN should disapprove of such... any government could conveniently exclude anyone. PR isn't particularly underdeveloped anyway.Potatoswatter 00:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I think the different figures i did find for HDI would place Puerto Rico pretty high, though they were all outdated. According to this wikipedia article (List of countries by Human Development Index) Puerto Rico's HDI is .942 for 1998 ,but I don't know any references for that statistic. Actually the best Reference would actually seem to be the UN's Earthwatch page which has the same statistic dated 1998. Again I would like to see Puerto Rico added to the list and ranked, but if this is the best figure we have, its almost 10 years old. To rank Puerto Rico we need a 2007 HDI, which the UN doesn't apparently have. Do you have a suggestion on how to fix this?Mad05963 05:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is self governing since 1952. It is not a part of the US, it is a self governing nation in a free association with the US as an unincorporated commonwealth or free associated country. The US census does not include Puerto Rico in the US statistics because it is not annexated, it is not a part of the US. UN country code for Puerto Rico is 630 since 1953 [4] , UN page for PR[5] --Royptorico 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Data in Tables

Most of the 'top 30' table is wrong. For example, Switzerland is listed as top but is actually 9th. Seehttp://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/1.html Why? Nom DeGuerre 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that someone's fixed this now.

Nagorno-karabakh

Can we include Nagorno-karabakh in countries not included?

The UN includes that nation within Azerbaijan. Unless Azerbaijan excludes the whole region from their census and economic statistics, there's no reason to say it's not counted. Potatoswatter 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

HDI Map

Why don't we use the colour-blind compliant map instead of the default one? I can't edit it unless I create an account 80.177.165.204 15:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why there is no Poland on the list?

??

--81.26.0.21 11:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The article only lists the top 30 countries in the world. Poland's 37. To get the full ranking you have to clink on the provided link.radek 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is laughably inaccurate

I'm not sure what methodology is being used for the HDI (and the obscure mathematical formulas really don't shed much light on this issue). I do know that the rankings in this article make no sense if you read the article's own explanation for what the HDI is.

The article claims that HDI is based on factors such as life expectancy, adult literacy and a "decent" standard of living. And yet the U.S. supposedly ranks above such prosperous, affluent nations as Luxembourg, Austria, and Belgium.

WTF?

I'm not saying that Europe is a utopia by any means. But as far as factors like life expectancy and adult literacy, frankly, Europe leaves the U.S. in the dust. Most European secondary schools are vastly more demanding than U.S. schools. A lot of inner city U.S. schools these days are positively Third World. And as far as life expectancy goes, the U.S. ranks outside of the top 40, I believe. What's more, the U.S. has widespread extreme poverty of the sort that simply doesn't exist in Europe.

To be sure, poverty exists in Europe. But it is nothing like the bottom-of-the-barrel horrific poverty that is frighteningly widespread in the U.S. (although we Americans like to pretend it doesn't exist).— Precedingunsigned comment added by 71.86.124.8 (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2007

And how do you know this? Wikiant (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is copied from data provided by the UN. The UN gets data from wherever it pleases. My impression is that they're more concerned with the bottom of the list than petty rivalries at the top.

Maybe you haven't spent enough time in Europe, or asked your Belgian friends difficult enough questions. Life sucks for many people and that's much a result of How Shit Is. Quit putting down the third world, since they're often actually trying. Potatoswatter 08:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're implying that the US is not one of the richest, nicest places in the world then you are sadly mistaken. Literacy rates are 95-100% in both the US and Europe. As the US is a huge country of 300 million, is very active, very involved in world affairs unlike others in the top places in the HDI, it's inevitable that it has more poverty, especially in some inner cities. However, it is also home to some of the richest and most educated places in the world.

Its universities/colleges, the most relevant form of education, are the best in the world and even on average are better than that of their European counterparts.

Life expectancies between most developed nations are so minimally different that the US ranking in the low 40s isn't much different from the countries you listed, which are mostly in the mid 20s.

Overall, it may be acceptable to say inaccurate (it's the UN making this study, after all) but laughably? No. Bloodloss 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

America's literacy rates are not 95-100% as you claim. A 5-year American research program costing 14 million dollars released in 1993 showed that about 50% of American adults are in the two lowest literacy groups earning less than $7363 US dollars a year, the poverty threshold back then. See the article at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Literacy#United_States. Oranges91 08:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What does earnings have to do with literacy? Literacy is if you cna read and write. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 75.154.84.140 (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To put this in perspective, Norway scores 0.968 & USA 0.951, a difference of 1.7% on the scale of 0 to 1. ---DavidJErskine(talk) 05:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WAY WAY WAY WAY messed up table at the bottom on 2007 report. The UK and Israel are both include twice in current rankings. Canada isn't even on the list. The whole list is messed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by134.148.5.119 (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Colour blind compliant image

I have restored direct placement of the colour-blind compliant maps. The original maps had no advantage over the colour-blind compliant maps, but had a significant drawback in that one in twelve white males could not read them. I will revert edits of anyone moving back to the original maps unless they give good reason here. An article about human development should not be used as a tool to discriminate against disability, race and gender. Traffic light colours are only useful if they are in sequence - red top, yellow middle, green bottom. On a map, any connection to the top/middle/bottom placement is lost and thus claims of the "universality" of traffic lights is irrelevent. Andrew Oakley 20:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

...and you will be reverted until a consensus asserts otherwise. The 'traffic light' scheme was devised and consensually agreed upon more than a year ago; this scheme is also reflected in the country infoboxes for each country. Functionality and usability are maintained through links to the colour-blind compliant maps. Moreover, arguments about discrimination are bullocks. Corticopia 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please state what advantages the discriminatory image has over the non-discriminary one, or any disadvantages the non-discriminatory image has over the discriminatory one. Consensus isn't always good; discrimination and prejudice are forms of consensus. Andrew Oakley 11:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I already have explained my actions and reasons, and if you choose to continue to label such actions as discriminatory etc., unquestionably apersonal attack, your nonconsensual edits will be reverted without further consideration or comment. Corticopia 11:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is an unnecessarily legalistic viewpoint which I really don't see any justification for. You haven't actually given any reason why we should prefer the red-green-yellow colour scheme over the blue-red-yellow one except that it 'was agreed' beforehand. Well, so what. Evidently that agreement didn't consider all the facts. And yes, leaving as it is is discriminatory, whether intentionally or not, because, well, it discriminates against the red-green colour-blind. BovineBeast 12:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't provided any compelling reasons to forego the prior consensus, either. If you actually read what I wrote, there are a number of reasons to maintain the current colour scheme. Proponents of the blue map seem content to not throw up a stink regarding the plethora of other maps and symbols in Wikipedia which contain green. Moreover, a link is provided to the alternate blue map ... so claims of discrimination are, well, as fruitless as they were beforehand. Corticopia 23:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You can have your "colour blind compliant image" all you want, as long as it does not obfuscate the "Top thirty countries (HDI range from 0.965 down to 0.885)" list. Thanks to that handy work, Germany's position was blocked. -merrick79 28 May 2007

With a 30 second peek at the article, one notes there are two similar maps. Keep the one with Taiwan colored in. Jidanni 11:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Green and red arrows

What do the green/red, up/down arrows mean? Same question for the number in parenthesis after the arrows. There should be a legend somewhere. User:musujyay 18:82 (UTC), April 23, 2007

The arrows mean it went up or down from the last index, and the number is the current ranking. --Kitch ^{(Talk :Contrib)} 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No foreign language links

Somebody should add the foreign language versions for the article, e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index. As the article is locked I can't do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.24.152(talk • contribs)

Someone tried to put the detailed map up top, and damaged the whole article. It's fixed now. --Kitch ^{(Talk :Contrib)} 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How About Cities?

How about having a list of cities with their HDI? I think it would be important to compare development of the major cities compared to rest of the country (eg Panama city has an HDI of 0.937 while the country as a whole is at 0.809)

Contradiction

How can we have rankings going back to 1980 if the Human Development Index was started in 1990? Did they just decide to do rank countries for the previous ten years? I believe this needs some explanation. Thank you, (74.134.124.3 20:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Predictions segment

The predictions segment is poorly written and possibly inaccurate. Who wrote this segment and why is it part of the article? It seems ludicrous to try and predict the future when nations statuses can wax and wane. If this segment is necessary, I'll fix the language. -Keenada(talk) 21:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have erased it, made no sense at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by83.59.210.78 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That was me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poveda (talk •contribs) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

One prediction is fairly safe -- Iceland isn't going to be on top next year... AnonMoos (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Was Eastern Europe higher than the OECD states prior to collapse?

The trend looked that way.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Top 50

Top 50 is only a way to confuse readers that some countries are developed when in reality they're not. (kardrak 03:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC))

Fairseeder

This user without any other argument than his own original research or will to include his own country as one of the top developed countries in the world is trolling around editing the article when since the beginning only a top 30 ranking have been decided. (kardrak) 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Denmark/Spain misplacement

I had to correct the list of the top 30 countries on HDI as Denmark was at the 13th spot and Spain at 14th. Actually is the other way round, Spain being slightly higher than DK on this index (even if the score is identical), as you can see at the UN site Here:[[6]]

The rest of the list is absolutely right, thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by85.49.192.192 (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Someone (anonymously) removed Hong Kong from the list and moved the nations in 22-30 up one place. I have reverted this, since it does not accord withList of countries by Human Development Index. While I agree Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, it does have sufficient autonomy that it has a significantly different HDI than the rest of China (which is down at 81st place with 0.777), and since the UN calculated it and placed Hong Kong 21st, I think it's only right that we report it as such. David McCormick (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

It appears someone vandalized the page and put freakin' 'Italic textNigeriain the top ten of the list.68.126.206.194 (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 4 June 2008.

Norway/Iceland

Since I last was here, Norway has crept above Iceland on the list on this page. But the List of countries by HDI list has Iceland still at the top. They have the same score - to three significant figures. But I presume Iceland had a higher number without the rounding and someone (Norwegian?) has changed this article on the sly to say that Norway is top. One article must be wrong. I didn't change it. If the Chinese spies are going to fiddle the results aswell (see entry above), then we need to request semi protection. --81.105.242.11 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism (practical joke) to me. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

With the reported numbers, Iceland is ahead of Norway by 1/10,000 (0.9681 vs 0.9680). This is however due to an inadequacy in the applied denominator of the GDP Index, namely log (40,000). By that Norway's calculated GDP Index is actually 1.006 (GDP 41420$), which is rounded down to 1,000 when summarized into the HDI. Using a properly discreting GDP Index denominator e.g. of log (41,420), Iceland's GDP Index is reduced while Norways's stays at unity, yielding a HDI of Norway that is ahead of Iceland by 2/1000 (Iceland's revised HDI is 0.966). Hence, it can be stated that Norway is indeed #1, if proper formulas where applied. (I'm not responsible for changing the table, though!) Iceland's HDI is predicted to fall significantly in 2008/9, due to the breakdown in their economy. --Eivindgh (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Style error

Hello,

At the Methodology section, there is a style error. Under the GDP Index formula, there is some strange HTML text, like "! style="background: #efefef;" | Formula |- ! style="background: #ffdead;" | Longevity". Could someone please fix this? Thanks in advance!

Tvdm (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Formulas

Where'd we get those formulas. There not cited and they have mistakes like log(100)=2 Jimmy da tuna 00:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy da tuna (talk• contribs)

If you mean the formulae that are used to calculate the HDI, they were chosen by the people who created the HDI. Log(100) does equal 2 (though ln(100) does not). Wikiant (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 statistical update figures incorrect

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 [7] 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 the2008 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) and2008 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)

The new map is incorrect

Ukraine has 0.786[8], but on the map it is shown same colour as 0.800–0.849 . Same thing with Kazahstan: it is shown to have 0.750–0.799 , but in reality it has 0.807[9]. DVoit 15:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

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. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Link-GC (talk •contribs) 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity vs. preferences, prejudices, and passion

The article's lead paragraphs disappoint me; they seem to lack objectivity. I wonder if the article might have a Neutral Point of View if it did not contain words like "claimed... vulgar measure... arbitrary weightings of a few aspects of social development". Is this an article explaining an index, a measure that uses quantitative data to provide comparisons or is it an article where some claim the measure is misleading and that the indications for a given tribe are underrated or overvalued?

My professional work over the past 40 years used many descriptive statistics, including units of comparison and indexes. Long ago, I learned a dull hoe was better than no hoe at all.

This article and those who commented on this talk page might be better off if selfish pride and tribalism were set aside in the interest of working to develop better tools to help us understand, define, and solve problems for the betterment of our fellows.

Namaste! //Don K. (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Term Developing Countries

<quote> ...which usually also implies to determine whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country. </quote>

this seems questionable to me. as the UN statistics department mentiones, "There is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing" countries or areas in the United Nations system. In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania, and Europe are considered "developed" regions or areas. In international trade statistics, the Southern African Customs Union is also treated as a developed region and Israel as a developed country; countries emerging from the former Yugoslavia are treated as developing countries; and countries of eastern Europe and of the Commonwealth of Independent States (code 172) in Europe are not included under either developed or developing regions." http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm

The HDI scores thus do not serve as a distinction between developed, developing or underdeveloped country, imo, and as far as i can see, actually many of the countries usually regarded as developing countries (acc to the UN statistics devision) achieve HDI-scores in the range of "high" HD, e.g. costa rica, brasil, united arab emirates and many more. -> ???

--Schlafwachstoerungen (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Word change: "The index has also been criticized"

Since that (above) phrase was repeated back to back, I changed "also" to "further" in the latter instance. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UT

Does per capita GDP matter?

The index measures health & education, & a country needs to be rich to achieve high scores in these areas. This suggests that per capita GDP doesnt matter for this or any similar index. The same argument applies to inequality of income: such inequality pulls down the average scores for health & education, so high scores in these areas imply that income inequality has no serious effect. It is possible for the effects of unequal incomes to be partly offset by heavy public spending in health & education, the so called social wage. --DavidJErskine (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that GDP per capita doesn't matter. It means that there is overlap in what GDP per capita measures and what health & education measures. This is true to an extent, but the correlation is not perfect. Hence, the two measures together provide more information than either separately. It isn't clear to me that inequality matters. If there are poor in a country, what matters is that they are starving, not that they have less than others. For example, consider two countries, each with two people. In A, the two people have subsistence livings. In B, one person has a (in Western terms) middle class income and the other is very rich. Country A has less inequality, but the people in B are better off.Wikiant (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Inequality of income: we are both on the same side. My point is that serious inequality of income shows up in lower, perhaps slightly lower, scores for health & education. I agree that in a rich country inequality of income might not have much impact in scores for health & education. The twist is that a rich country can afford to spend heavily in health & education, if it wants to. --DavidJErskine (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The HDI is an arbitrary measure (that is, there is no theoretical justification for its construction), and the overlap of component measures that you identify is a recognized problem. The intent was to come up with a measure that better captures the idea of "standard of living" than does income per capita. IMHO, analyses of standards of living should use a suite of measures such as HDI, GDI (gender development index), PI (poverty index), GEM (gender empowerment measure), IEF (index of economic freedom). Each of these only approximates (some perhaps poorly) the concept of well being, but each does so from a slightly different perspective. Taken as a whole, they can paint a useful picture. Wikiant (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Who does the HDI?

It appears that the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) does the HDI. For example, see[[10]]. Wakablogger2 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

New HDIs are coming out October 5!

I'm so excited! Henjeng55155 (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Already out: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdf Pristino (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Commentary:

October 6, 2009, Norway is best place to live, China moves up: UN, AFP (Yahoo!7 News)

Regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 changes

The changes shown here (for the 2009 report compared to the 2008 report) do not correspond with List of countries by Human Development Index. For example; last year, Iceland was ranked first, with Norway second. However, this article suggests that Norway's position hasn't changed, as shown with a ''. Hayden120 (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The 2008 report uses figures based on 2005 data. The 2009 report compares the 2007 data to 2006 data and gives the change in ranking from 2006-2007. As far as I can tell, the change in rankings in this article are taken directly from the report. --superioridad ^(discusión) 04:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the 2008 report actually uses data from 2006. In the last two reports, released in 2008 and 2007 (which covers 2006 and 2005 data respectively), Iceland was ranked first. This can be seen in the #2008 statistical update and #2007/2008 report sections of this article. In the current report, Iceland is ranked third, therefore it has dropped two places.

The 2009 report appears to be using a revised set of past statistics (on p. 167) that are different from prior reports. For consistency on Wikipedia, I think we should compare each year's data with previously released reports. Hayden120 (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about consistency, I think we should be comparing rankings based on a consistent set of statistics. The 2009 report revises the data released last year, so this is what we should be comparing to. The article is fine as it is. Pristino (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, I think a note should be included to clarify that they are revised. It is confusing for the reader when they scroll down the page and see rankings that don't correspond with the new data. Otherwise, the fact that Iceland has been ranked first for the last two years almost appears to be erased from history. Hayden120 (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Map needs update

I have not checked the map exhaustively, but at least these countries need their colours to be updated:

-Belgium -Italy -New Zealand -Spain -Austria

Since 2009 they're "over 0.950" countries, so their colour should be the darkest green.

I don't have a clue about editing svg maps. Any volunteers? Cheers. --85.62.37.2 (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Some cleanup

performed on Lede and methodology §. Prior text stated that it was an average which is both vague and apparently incorrect for the current UNDP definition. I didn't verify the detail formulae against the current standard definition. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"This effectively means that a country of immortals with infinite per-capita GDP would get a score of .666 (lower than South Africa and Tajikistan) if its population were illiterate and never went to

lol demonic country of imps 79.182.50.19 (talk) had to say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by79.182.50.19 (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

More detailed map needed

Many administrative regions and states within large countries have their own HDI, and the world map would be more accurate if it reflected this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by87.239.86.199 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

83.147.147.254 (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How is this in any way a valid criticism?

Economist Bryan Caplan has criticized the way scores in each of the three components are bounded between zero and one, so rich countries effectively cannot improve their ranking in certain categories, even though there is a lot of scope for economic growth and longevity left, "This effectively means that a country of immortals with infinite per-capita GDP would get a score of .666 (lower than South Africa and Tajikistan) if its population were illiterate and never went to school."[9] Scandinavian countries consistently come out top on the list, he argues, "because the HDI is basically a measure of how Scandinavian your country is."[9]

This guy is basically criticizing a judgement tool for _human development_ by saying that you can't get 1.000 for having super powers and infinite GDP at the expense of things that you know, are a large part of human development. Why is this included in the article? Is it just so people with brains can laugh at it? Oh HDI, full of such blatant Scandinavian biased measures like "being educated and knowing how to read."

Maybe you'd understand if you could do the math, but you can't. -- 98.145.88.132 (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can't do the "Math" then your likely from one of those super rich immortal countries you speak of. Glad I don't live there. 83.147.147.254 (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The HDI tells us what nations do best on the HDI, in the way that a horse race tells us which horse is the winner. The winning horse sets the standard. If the top scoring nation does better next year in life expectancy, and education, then the upper limits move up slightly.---DavidJErskine (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Fiji was included in 2009 report

According to this article, Fiji was one of the countries not included in the Human Development Index of 2009. According to List of countries by Human Development Index, Fiji was indeed included, it came out at Number 108, just one place below Syria and one place above Turkmenistan. Surely this statement about Fiji needs to be deleted, as these two articles contradict each other. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New Report Today

At some point today they'll be releasing the 2010 edition of the HDI report covering 2008. It'll include a new Multidimentional Poverty Index. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/ 134.39.27.36 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and now it uses a completely different metodology, which resulted in completely new values. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.112.64.228 (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What would they be with the old calculations? (Also the previous values have been retroactively edited.)Drgreen19 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was WONDERING why Norway was .20 lower than last year, and yet has a green arrow indicating improvment!Masternachos(talk) 00:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Major update

UN has released a 2010 update, including a new method to calculate the HDI. A major update is needed... http://hdr.undp.org/en/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by200.79.47.238 (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Official HDI map 2010

The map file: "2010 UN Human Development Report .png" is based on the official UNDP HDI 2010 map and does not uses an arbitrary distinction of countries based in any original research.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map/

kardrak 01:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added byKardrak (talk • contribs)

HDI world map

Hello there. I believe this map:

is superior to this map:

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) 17:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I will replace the black with the lighter blue like in the formal map.

kardrak (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you think Eliko? kardrak (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Better than the map with the black. Eliko (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i will put this. kardrak (talk) 20:53, 15 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.

Until the problems are resolved, I remove the map from the article.--90.177.208.162 (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

^ [11]
^ [12]

[1] [11]

[2] [12]

[1]

[2]