Talk:Human Development Index/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The map is wrong and the chapter misleading

The dark blue states on the map are those with very high HDI, but this colour DOES NOT cover all 'very high HDI' countries. Many of these countries are coloured lighter blue as developing countries. According to the UN, the 'very high HDI' developed countries start already with Barbados with HDI 0.788. As an example, the Great Britain is a developed, very high HDI county according to UN (HDI 0.849) but is the same colour on the map as Iran, Russia or Kazakchstan, all 'high HDI' developing countries with HDI 0.700-0.719. —Precedingunsignedcomment added by Krugers (talk •contribs) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

EU versus US

Wouldn't it be nice to see a direct comparison, EU versus US in the listings? Or perhaps add all the US states to make them comparable?

No, bad idea that last one, but thinking that the US and the EU are not identical economic identities and therefore comparable is not quite right either.

Yes, American states are not nations. But, so what? What's important is a direct comparison between the two since they are demographically and economically similar, both in the aggregate. — Preceding unsigned comment added byTperla (talk • contribs) 10:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. They are similar neither demographically nor economically. Also EU is falling apart, euro is discredited and euroscepticism grows. i don't think that anyone would appreciate having EU in the list.--85.162.77.96 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This report reflects 2008 data,not 2010!

Someone has evidently made a mistake by saying the data for the 2010 report reflects 2010,no it is for 2008.Data for 2010 won't be shown until the report out in 2012.The 2009 report contained data from 2007,and 2008 reflected data from 2006.Basically from the previous two years.So if someone can change this to 2008 instead of 2010,that would be wonderful.The report is 2010,the data is from 2008.The upcoming 2011 report will reflect data from 2009.

Thanks,signed by Prosperity4all,February 14,2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added byProsperity4all (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary: The old report of 2009 clearly states that the HDIs are for 2007, while the new report of 2010 (based on a new methodology of calculations) clearly states that the HDIs are estimates for 2010. See the tables in both reports. Eliko (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Greenland

The two lead HDI maps provide conflicting information for Greenland. More precisely one says no data and the other colours it green as if data is available.Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

New HDI Report On EU Lists Over Half Highest Regions Are In UK

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/focus/2011_02_hdev_hpov_indices.pdf

This new HDI report states that over half the regions with the highest HDI in the entire EU are British (specifically English) yet the UK came 26th in the 2010 stats but this hasn't been factored into the article, is there scope for inclusion? I think it's a fascinating example of why you cannot just list HDI by country in the article.Twobells (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this report actually being a direct criticism of the UNDP HDI. It just shows more granularity on HDI then brings in other factors to consider.
Indeed the UK is 26th because as a whole that is the way the numbers come out. Highlighting that much of England is actually higher than the national average just begs every other concerned citizen from wanting breakdown analysis on their country included to show their particular point. To what end? An endless reductionist argument? Nonetheless, I think this report could be included in the "Lists" section along with the other more ganular reports at the regional, state or lesser level. If you think there is enough meat in the report a seperate article might be warranted.Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:05, 16 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) 19:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

New report published: all needs updating

Find the link attached: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added byRejedef (talk • contribs) 12:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

About rank changes on 2010 report section

The rank changes on 2010 report should've been taken from the HDI figures for the previous year present in the 2010 report itself onTable 2: Human Development Index trends, 1980-2010, like it's on the report in the same table. Comparing ranks from reports with uncomparable methods and different set of countries just brings some incongruous figures such as some coutries rising up to 17 in ranks, as if some miracolous development ocurred in a short time span, and some droping uo to 14, as if same disaster had occurred. Those huge changes in ranks and huge numbers of passings are much more a effect of methodology change, that affects distinctly each country, and change of set of countries, than changes on countries human development parameters. I mean, that's exactly why the trend table is on the reporp. To provide HDI values for the previous years following the methodoly and over the same set of countries in the report being published and thus providing comparable values and ranks. They even go as further as doing explicitly ranks comparison on the trends table, almost yelling: "It is to be done like this!!!". To top with, this rank comparisson thing is suppose to be in a yaerly basis, I mean, 2008 ranking being compared with 2007 rank and so on. But in 2010 report there was a change on the year of reference. It showed estimates for 2010 whereas the 2009 report showed figures for 2007 data. Comparing those two, besides the issues I write above, is comparing 3 years far data.

I think that just no have noticed it yet and this is not something under discussion or doubt, since in 2011 report section things are done correctly, in other words, the ranks are compered just like on the 2011 report, using the trends table data there. So I'll just correc this in 2010 report section. Czarccc (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Flaw in Income Measure

Looking at the income component of HDI, I see that it is flawed, especially regarding the IHDI. I added my explanation in the article as to why, and I think it puts things into perspective, and helps readers interpret the rankings.

lneal001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by76.110.169.129 (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

2009 report

Italy's HDI (1.980) is obviously incorrect (given the ranking between Belgium's 0.953 and Liechtenstein's 0.951)

I've just fixed that. HOOTmag (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

IHDI Update

http://hdr.undp.org/hdr4press/press/outreach/figures/IHDI_Trends_2013.pdf

Anyone mind fixing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.2.148 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Explain 2011 change

Does anyone care to expand the article to include a description of the motivations for the alterations of the formulae to the new 2011 standard? Why geometric mean, why the new magic numbers? I'm very curious. Luqui (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesnt the fact that the UK has a lower HDI than Greece warrant a line in the "Criticism" section? Its pretty surreal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.155.66 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

IHDI is missing countries

The updated top quartile list for IHDI for 2013 is missing a few countries. I've noticed Montenegro and Serbia so far, there are probably others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Some Guy114 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Montenegro and Serbia are not part of the list. See the source here[2] Page 152. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

According to that source, Montenegro, Belarus, Serbia and Bulgaria all have higher IHDIs than numerous countries listed in the supposed 'top quartile'. Why were they omitted from the list?

What page are you referring to? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the list. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 IHDI section dispute

Previous discussion

The source on p. 152 gives the gap between the new IHDI data and the new HDI data. However, Wikipedia should fix these gaps, because it has another IHDI ranking, because it ignores countries missing IHDI data. See for example Ireland, that has a different IHDI rank. HOOTmag (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a violation of WP:OR. I've reverted to the previous values used in the source. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

But also the very IHDI ranking is a violation of WO:OR, because it's not the original ranking as it's calculated from the gaps indicated in the source. I don't reject your position to stick to the source, as long as your position tries to be consistent - by trying to stick also to the original IHDI ranking as it's calculated from the gaps indicated in the source. However, as long as Wikiepdia decides to adjust the original IHDI ranking - by omitting countries that have no IHDI data, then Wikipedia must avoid contradictions - by keeping the correct gaps between its adjusted IHDI ranking and the HDI ranking. You can't use the term WO:OR for my efforts to prevent the article from contradicting itself. So, before you revert to any version, please make sure that the article does not contradict itself: either by adjusting the gaps between the IHDI ranking and the HDI ranking (as I did), or by sticking to the original IHDI ranking as it's calculated from the gaps indicated in the source. HOOTmag (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Page 152 of the source is very clear and the material in the article sticks to the source. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The version you support contradicts both itself and the source! See for instance, Ireland's ranking: According to the source, Ireland's rank is 7th - both on the IHDI list and on the HDI list, whereas the gap between the Irish IHDI and the Irish HDI - is correctly indicated in the source to be zero. However, according to the version you support, Ireland's HDI rank is 7th, whereas Ireland's IHDI is 6th - as opposed the Irish IHDI rank in the source, while the gap between the Irish IHDI and the Irish HDI is indicated in your version to be zero - thus contradicting the correct gap between the ranks in the your version. Note that Ireland is not an exception: such contradictions repeat in your version in most of the countries. To sum up, the version you support contradicts both itself and the source.

I don't reject your position to stick to the source, as long as your position tries to be consistent - by your trying to stick also to the original IHDI ranking as it's calculated from the gaps indicated in the source. However, as long as Wikiepdia decides to adjust the original IHDI ranking - by omitting countries that have no IHDI data, then Wikipedia must avoid contradictions - by keeping the correct gaps between its adjusted IHDI ranking and the HDI ranking. Note that there are many ways to avoid contradictions, one of which I've been using - by reverting your version to a version that (at least) avoid contradicting itself. To sum up, you can't use the term WO:OR for my efforts to prevent the article from contradicting itself. So, before you revert my version to any other version, please make sure that the article does not contradict itself: I let you do that yourself, either by keeping the adjusted gaps between the IHDI ranking and the HDI ranking - as I did, or by sticking to the original IHDI ranking - as it's calculated from the gaps indicated in the source. HOOTmag (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've placed an edit warring warning on your talk page. I'm the person who originally added that section to the article and the source is very clear. There is no contradiction but I understand why you're confused. If you look at the IHDI in the source (pg. 152),[3] the countries are actually in order of their HDI ranking. In order to get the IHDI list you need to look at the second column which you'll realize is in a different order (Ireland is 0.850 while the United States has a lower value of 0.821). The IHDI list is comprised of these values and this is what is in the article. I advise you to revert your last change. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I, too, have placed an edit warring warning on your talk page (see below).

Yes, you've copied and pasted the one I placed on your talk page, even though you were the last to revert the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

So what? Does my message claim you were the last one to revert? Either one of us has only made two reverts - during the 24 hours, so if you think your message on my talk page is appropriate, then my message on your talk page is appropriate as well. However, I don't care if you cancel both messages from our talk pages. HOOTmag (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As opposed to what you've claimed, I'm not confused at all. I know that you're the person who originally added that section to the article. Yes, as you say - the source is very clear, but the section you added is not: on the contrary: it's self-contradictory. If you look at the IHDI in the source (pg. 152),[4] the countries are actually in order of their HDI ranking. Correct. In order to get the IHDI list - one needs to look at the second column, which - one will realize - is in a different order (Ireland is 0.850 while the United States has a lower value of 0.821). Correct. However, unfortunately, the section you've added - which should present the original IHDI ranking as appearing in the source "on that second column", does not present that original IHDI ranking!

You still don't understand so I'll ask you a question. On page 152 of the source, what are the values in the 4th column(Difference from HDI rank) for the United States, Germany, and Canada? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I do understand quite well (as you'll see soon), and I suspect this is you who don't figure out what I'm claiming. In your first response you were referring to the second column, now you're referring to the 4th column. As for your questions: USA's IHDI rank is 16th, i.e. (as indicated in the 4th column and in your version and in my version) 13 ranks below its 3rd HDI rank. Germany's IHDI rank is 5th, i.e. (as indicated both in the 4th column and in your version and in my version) 0 ranks below its 5th HDI rank. However, Canada's IHDI rank is 15th, i.e. (as indicated both in the 4th column and in your version - yet not in my version) 4 ranks below its 11th HDI rank. However, the correct Canadian IHDI rank is - unfortunately - quite different from the one (=13th) appearing in your version; That's why I had to adjust the gaps between the HDI ranking and the IHDI ranking - in order to prevent the article from being self-contradictory. However, I don't care if - instead - you fix the IHDI ranks appearing in your version, in order to make sure that your version is not self-contradictory, although the first way is much safer. Alternatively, you can simply omit the gaps, which is probably the safest way. HOOTmag (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

All that writing and you failed to clearly answer my question. The United States is (-13). Germany is (0). Canada is (-4), yet your version of the article shows Canada as (-2). To make my point more clear, the values for Iceland, Denmark, and Austria are all (3) according to the fourth column of the source, yet your last revert to the article shows (6) for all of these countries. So not only are you not sticking to what the source says but you also have a theory for why you're doing it. This is what is called WP:OR and is not allowed. The numbers in the article need to match the numbers in the source. If you still don't understand this I will get another editor involved. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What are talking about? Did I "fail to clearly answer your question"? My exact answer to your question matches exactly your answer, and please look again at the bold digits in my previous response!
Yes, I have already pointed out that the 4th column indicates Canada's gap as being 4. Correct. I've also pointed out that this gap is "indicated both in the 4th column and in your version - yet not in my version"! Is this a disadvantage in my version? Yes it is! Now, let's assume that you're right, i.e. that this disadvantage is really an WP:OR; However - then - my version has one kind of disadvantage only - i.e. an WP:OR (in calculating the gaps), this being a legitimate reasonable price paid for having the article free of a more severe disadvantage: self-contradictions (as I have explained that many times); Whereas your version has - then - two kinds of disadvantages (the second one being worse): 1. WP:OR (in your IHDI ranking). 2. self-contradiction (between your two rankings and your gap values between your two rankings).
Just to make my point more clear, let me ask you six simple questions about Canada - about which you've asked me, and please answer all of these questions by bold digits, as I did when I answered your questions:

1. What is Canada's HDI rank - according to the source?

2. What is Canada's gap - as indicated in the 4th column of the source, between the HDI rank and the IHDI rank?

3. What is Canada's IHDI rank according to the source?

4. What is Canada's HDI rank according to your version?

5. What is Canada's gap - as indicated in your version, between the HDI rank and the IHDI rank?

6. What is Canada's IHDI rank according to your version?

You claim that the article should avoid WP:OR, while I claim - both that the article should avoid self-contradictions - and that any self-contradiction is much more severe than any WP:OR, whereas: having both a self contradiction and an WP:OR (as you have in your IHDI ranking) - is even worse.
You claim that If I still don't understand your position you will get another editor involved, whereas I claim that If you still don't understand my position I will get ten editors involved. HOOTmag (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Your questions and lengthy response make clear your continued OR violation. Canada's HDI rank has nothing to do with the section I added to the article. Your lengthy theorizing is precisely what constitutes your OR violation, irregardless of your rationale. The source used in the article is very clear. I've contacted another editor regarding your behavior here. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Canada's HDI rank has much to do with the article - which indicates this HDI rank, and it also has much to do with the gap you've indicated in the section, because this is a gap between the IHDI rank and the HDI rank. Note that every editor's version is of the whole article, rather than of one section only. Note also that not only shouldn't your section contain contradictions, but also your full version - i.e. your version of the whole article - should not contain self-contradictions either, while your full version - unfortunately - does contain.
The fact that you ignore my six questions, after I did answer all of your questions, is not constructive in our discussion. If you tried to answer my questions (which are very easy to answer: just copy 6 digits from the source and from the article), you could realize that your version is OR violation as well, because the IHDI ranking is not indicated in the source: You have manually calculated it from other data in the source, just as I manually calculated the gaps from the two rankings in the article (the IHDI ranking and the HDI ranking). My point is, that your version of the article has both an WP:OR and a self-contradiction. You could realize that, if you agreed to answer my six questions (just as I fully answered yours).
I, too, contacted another editor regarding your behavior here. HOOTmag (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The IHDI ranking in your version is totally different, since it gives Ireland - as well as most of the countries - a rank different from their original IHDI ranks that appears in the source "on that second column". For example, the Irish IHDI rank is 7th in the source but 6th in your version! Further, according to your version - the correct gap between the Irish HDI rank (being 7th in your version) and the Irish IHDI rank (being 6th in your version) is one - not zero, as opposed to what your version claims and to what the source claims on p. 152.

Another question. On page 152 of the source, what is the value in the 4th column(Difference from HDI rank) for Ireland? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ireland's IHDI rank is 7th - i.e. 0 ranks below its 7rd HDI rank. However, the correct Irish IHDI rank is - unfortunately - quite different from the one (=6th) appearing in your version; That's why I had to adjust the gaps between the HDI ranking and the IHDI ranking - in order to prevent the article from being self-contradictory. However, I don't care if - instead - you fix the IHDI ranks appearing in your version, in order to make sure that your version is not self-contradictory, although the first way is much safer. Alternatively, you can simply omit the gaps from the article, which is probably the safest way. HOOTmag (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The fourth column of the source clearly shows Ireland as (0), yet your version shows it as (1). This is also wrong. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't prove this is "wrong", though you're still able to prove this does not match the numbers in the source, which do not match your two rankings (your HDI ranking and your IHDI ranking). Wrong or not? Let's see:
Let's assume that this disadvantage in my version is really an WP:OR; However - then - my version has one kind of disadvantage only - i.e. an WP:OR (in calculating the gaps), this being a legitimate reasonable price paid for having the article free of a more severe disadvantage: self-contradictions (as I have explained that many times); Whereas your version has - then - two kinds of disadvantages (the second one being worse): 1. WP:OR (in your IHDI ranking). 2. self-contradiction (between your two rankings and your gap values between your two rankings).
Just to make my point more clear, let me ask you six simple questions about Ireland - about which you've asked me, and please answer all of these questions by bold digits, as I did when I answered your question:

1. What is Ireland's HDI rank - according to the source?

2. What is Ireland's gap - as indicated in the 4th column of the source, between the HDI rank and the IHDI rank?

3. What is Ireland's IHDI rank according to the source?

4. What is Ireland's HDI rank according to your version?

5. What is Ireland's gap - as indicated in your version, between the HDI rank and the IHDI rank?

6. What is Ireland's IHDI rank according to your version?

HOOTmag (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Your questions and lengthy response make clear your continued OR violation. Ireland's HDI rank has nothing to do with the section I added to the article. Your lengthy theorizing is precisely what constitutes your OR violation, irregardless of your rationale. The source used in the article is very clear. I've contacted another editor regarding your behavior here. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ireland's HDI rank has much to do with the article - which indicates this HDI rank, and it also has much to do with the gap you've indicated in the section, because this is a gap between the IHDI rank and the HDI rank. Note that every editor's version is of the whole article, rather than of one section only. Note also that not only shouldn't your section contain contradictions, but also your full version - i.e. your version of the whole article - should not contain self-contradictions either, while your full version - unfortunately - does contain.
The fact that you ignore my six questions, after I did answer all of your questions, is not constructive in our discussion. If you tried to answer my questions (which are very easy to answer: just copy 6 digits from the source and from the article), you could realize that your version is OR violation as well, because the IHDI ranking is not indicated in the source: You have manually calculated it from other data in the source, just as I manually calculated the gaps from the two rankings in the article (the IHDI ranking and the HDI ranking). My point is, that your version of the article has both an WP:OR and a self-contradiction. You could realize that, if you agreed to answer my six questions (just as I fully answered yours).
I, too, contacted another editor regarding your behavior here. HOOTmag (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's why I had to adjust the gaps between the HDI ranking and the IHDI ranking - in order to prevent the article from being self-contradictory. I highly advise you to avoid reverting the current version, unless you copy the original IHDI ranking - as it's calculated from the gaps indicated in the source - in order to make sure that the article is not self-contradictiory. HOOTmag (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We need to wait to hear from some other editors to see what consensus is. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

All began when User:Somedifferentstuff added a section to the article. This section is supposed to be based on a source, and the source is indicated in the article. This source includes three values, A,B,C, all of which are small integers: 1. Value A (=the HDI rank) is explicitly indicated in the source; Both of us agree about it. 2. Value B (=the IHDI rank) is not indicated in the source, although User:Somedifferentstuff manually calculated it from some data in the source. 3. Value C, defined by the source to be the gap between value A and value B. Both of us agree about all of these facts. However, here is the objective problem from which our dispute arise: There is a contradiction between those three values! Because value C, which is explicitly indicated in the source and is defined to be the gap - between value A (explicitly indicated in the source) and value B (manually calculated by User:Somedifferentstuff), is not really the manually calculated gap between those values A and B. Note again that all of the three values are small integers (below 50).
User:Somedifferentstuff suggests ignoring this problem, and thus he supports a version in which I (not him) find two kinds of apparent disadvantages: 1. apparent WP:OR (in calculating value B). 2. apparent contradiction (between value C and the first two values: A,B).
That's why I've suggested three alternatives, each of which has one kind of apparent disadvantage only (i.e. apparent WP:OR without any apparent contradiction): My first suggestion, is to change value B - that was manually calculated by User:Somedifferentstuff; i.e. to manually re-calculate it, by using both value A and value C - as are explicitly indicated in the source. My second suggestion, is to keep User:Somedifferentstuff's value B, and to change value C - which is explicitly indicated in the source; i.e. to manually re-calculate it, by using both value A as indicated in the source - and value B as manually calculated by User:Somedifferentstuff. This second alternative is justified by the fact, that value C - i.e. the gap between value A and value B - is not intended to represent the position of the authors of the source, but rather is intended to represent Wikipedia's position about the objective gap between value A and value B as are indicated in Wikipedia, just as many tables in Wikipedia (e.g. in Sports, Economy, Geography and likewise) include gaps representing Wikipedia's position about the correct value of these gaps. I've also suggested a third alternative: to only present two values of the three (e.g. value A as explicitly indicated in the source and value B as manually calculated by User:Somedifferentstuff). HOOTmag (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Your lengthy response make clear your continued OR violation. Your theorizing is precisely what constitutes your OR violation, irregardless of your rationale. The source used in the article is very clear. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
We need to wait to hear from some other editors to see what consensus is. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you ignore my six questions, after I did answer all of your questions, is not constructive in our discussion. If you tried to answer my questions (which are very easy to answer: just copy 6 digits from the source and from the article), you could realize that your version is OR violation as well, because the IHDI ranking is not indicated in the source: You have manually calculated it from other data in the source, just as I manually calculated the gaps from the two rankings in the article (the IHDI ranking and the HDI ranking). My point is, that your version of the article has both an WP:OR and a self-contradiction. You could realize that, if you agreed to answer my six questions (just as I fully answered yours). HOOTmag (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If you understood the source, you'd also understand that your six questions are irrelevant to this discussion. The second and fourth columns of page 152 are very clear in terms of data. Harping on doesn't help your case. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I answered all of your questions - even though I thought they were irrelevant to this discussion, and that's why I expect you to answer all of my questions - even though you think they are irrelevant to this discussion. Harping on doesn't help your case. HOOTmag (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Current discussion

As far as I can tell, the argument above is mostly due to a slight misreading of the source data at [5]. Footnote a to the IHDI table (this footnote is given on page 155 of the source document, which is page 17 of the linked PDF) states that the rank difference column is relative to a version of the HDI ranking that *only* includes countries for which IHDI data is available. On the main article page, Wikipedia *does not show that shortened ranking*, instead only showing the main HDI ranking that includes all of the countries, including those without HDI data. Thus, the current differences shown on the article consist of *two* components: the innate ranking difference shown in the source data, *plus* another amount due to the impact of countries in the HDI ranking which do not have IHDI data.

That is, the source data is quoting rank differences based on the following list of countries. The plus signs indicating the rank changes solely due to countries higher in the HDI list without IHDI data:

    Norway
    Australia
    United States
    Netherlands
    Germany
    <New Zealand has no IHDI data>
    +1 Ireland
    +1 Sweden
    +1 Switzerland
    <Japan has no IHDI data>
    +2 Canada
    +2 South Korea
    <Hong Kong has no IHDI data>
    +3 Iceland
    +3 Denmark
    +3 Israel
    +3 Belgium
    +3 Austria
    <Singapore has no IHDI data>
    +4 France
    +4 Finland
    +4 Slovenia
    +4 Spain
    <Liechtenstein has no IHDI data>
    +5 Italy
    +5 Luxembourg
    +5 United Kingdom
    +5 Czech Republic
    +5 Greece
    <Brunei has no IHDI data>
    +6 Cyprus
    +6 Malta
    <Andorra has no IHDI data>
    +7 Estonia
    +7 Slovakia
    <Qatar has no IHDI data>
    +8 Hungary
    <Barbados has no IHDI data>
    +9 Poland
    +9 Chile
    +9 Lithuania
    <United Arab Emirates has no IHDI data>
    +10 Portugal
    +10 Latvia
    +10 Argentina
    <Seychelles has no IHDI data>
    +11 Croatia

So, Ireland, for example, is currently shown as 1: 0 for the innate ranking change, plus 1 because New Zealand has no IHDI data. The United States is shown as being down 13 places: 13 for the innate ranking change, with no influence from missing countries above it in the HDI list Canada is shown as being down 2 places: -4 for the innate ranking change, plus 2 because New Zealand and Japan have no IHDI data.

I believe the article should use the innate ranking differences, but better explain the following two points:

These are NOT rank differences relative to the HDI list shown in the main article, but to a version of that list with some countries (those without IHDI data) excluded.
Towards the ends of the IHDI list, some of the countries don't appear in the original list at all, because some countries in the original list drop down into "High development" under IHDI, while some others that are "High development" under HDI are considered "Very high development" under IHDI.

124.170.86.6 (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should use the innate ranking differences (this is what was previously in the article). These differences are also what the source states (pg. 152, column 4)[6] I will include some version of your first bullet near the beginning of the section. Now that a general consensus has been reached, I will update the article to reflect this. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of rank changes for IHDI

Metlx01, see pg. 152 of the source here: [7] - The ranking changes in the IHDI have nothing to do with a country's ranking from the previous year. The changes in rank are calculated against the current year HDI list with the exclusion of countries that are missing IHDI data. The reason they create the IHDI list is to determine what effect inequality had on a country for the current year. I know the way they calculate the rank changes may seem like it doesn't make sense so let me know if you want me to explain it some more. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh... I should have checked this talk page earlier. Sorry for being a nuisance. :/

Why doesn't the official report exclude the countries with missing IHDI values in the IHDI ranking?

I searched for the methodology for IHDI ranking when dealing with countries with missing IHDI info, but I have found none in the report. It would seem logical for them to exclude the ones that do not have a IHDI value, no? Metlx01 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Metlx01. The reason they don't exclude the countries from the list is partly because some of the countries have some of the inequality data. Looking at pg. 152 you can see that New Zealand is excluded from the ranking (columns 2 thru 4 show two dots ..) but columns 5 and 6 show values for the Inequality-adjusted life expectancy index meaning that New Zealand had some of the necessary data but not what was required to be part of the IHDI ranking. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Simplified Formula for HDI:

cbrt((Life Expectancy-20)sqrt(6798 * Mean Years In Education * Expected Years In Education)*((25000ln(Gross National Income per Capita)-50000ln(10))/2013815727)/(ln(107721)-2ln(10)))

Olafgarten (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: That's hardly "simplified." It's much easier to understand and work with it the way it's written now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014

This edit request to Human Development Index has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to propose adding the generalized HDI formulas as per 2013 report Technical Notes:

Generalized HDI equations:^[1]

1. Life Expectancy Index (LEI) $={\frac {{\textrm {LE}}-LE_{G,min}}{LE_{G,max}-LE_{G,min}}}$

2. Education Index (EI) $={\frac {{\sqrt {{\textrm {MYSI}}\cdot {\textrm {EYSI}}}}-EI_{G,min}}{EI_{G,max}-EI_{G,min}}}$

2.1 Mean Years of Schooling Index (MYSI)

={\frac {{\textrm {MYS}}-MYS_{G,min}}{MYS_{G,max}-MYS_{G,min}}}

2.2 Expected Years of Schooling Index (EYSI)

={\frac {{\textrm {EYS}}-EYS_{G,min}}{EYS_{G,max}-EYS_{G,min}}}

3. Income Index (II) $={\frac {\ln({\textrm {GNIpc}})-\ln(I_{G,min})}{\ln(I_{G,max})-\ln(I_{G,min})}}$

Goalposts for the 2013 report were set to:^[1]

$LE_{G,max}=83.6$ (Japan, 2012)

$LE_{G,min}=20$

$EI_{G,max}=0.971$ (New Zealand, 2010)

$EI_{G,min}=0$

$MYS_{G,max}=13.3$ (USA, 2010)

$MYS_{G,min}=0$

$EYS_{G,max}=18$ (capped at)

$EYS_{G,min}=0$

$I_{G,max}=87,478$ (Qatar, 2012)

$I_{G,min}=100$

Danielkscarmo (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean adding it as supplementary data: therefore, "Old method (before 2010 Report)" becomes "Original method (before 2010 Report)"; "New method (2010 Report onwards)" becomes "Second method (2010 through 2012)"; your additional tech notes would become "Current method (2013 Report onwards)" (per the 2013 technotes PDF)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The method itself has not changed since 2010 (2011 Report, Page 174 and 2010 Report, Page 225), but goalposts changes every year since, as it is the data observed maximum and arbitrary minimums ("minimum subsistence values"^[1]). So I found interesting to also present these generalized formulas to allow users to calculate the latest HDI by their own (like I did for my HDI mobile app). For instance, a user trying to calculate 2013 HDI of countries using the current presented formulas will not find results of the 2013 Report because current formulas seem to use 2010 goalposts.

Danielkscarmo (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It sounds like there is a general improvement being suggested in which these formulas replace the old method/new method sections with perhaps a table to show the goals which change each year. That sounds like a good suggestion, but outside the scope of an edit request. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you this decision. I need to repeat that a user is going to find invalid HDI results using current formulas on any year after 2010. In addition, I think these current formulas should be at least corrected as they are clearly wrong as per 2010 HDR 2010 HDR, Page 225. See that goalposts used are not compliant with the report Technical Notes chapter. It seems that some goalposts are from the 2011 HDR, some are from the 2010 HDR and one is unknown, in the same set of formulas (called "New method"). -- Danielkscarmo (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Older and ... well older on this issue. It is outside of the scope of your request, but I'd certainly encourage you to create a table to replace the current sections. You can find documentation to assist in creating tables at MOS:TABLES. There's a simple introduction to tables available here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c [1]. Page 2.

2014 Report!

http://hdr.undp.org/en/data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.80.5 (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Inequality-adjusted HDI list is incorrect

The latest Inequality-adjusted HDI list posted on this article is incorrect and should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.35.18.13 (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

'Human development and welfare is essentially about improvement of the life conditions of individuals. Human development is meanngless if people do not have enough to eat. Education and other welfare measures are useless when a person is hungry. Nourishment is very essential component of human development. Good attempts have been made to make inter country comparison of human development and welfare by using Human Development Index (HDI) by combining the important components such as: longevity, basic education and GNI per capita. GDI has however, not taken into account many important facts like gender equity, environmental concerns, inequality of income distribution, liberty and security, equal opportunities to excel, food security and and shelter etc. The HDI has kept at its minimum and has not taken into account even very essential factors like availability of food i.e size of hungry or malnourished population in a country, availability of safe drinking water and reasonably good shelter etc. Unlike developed countries, due to wide economic disparities, inequalities and other socio-economic irregular features, in most of the developing countries the benefits of development does not seem to have not percolated to a vast size of population. The present three components of HDI have not made adjustments for inequality in availability of these facilities and hence does not give a realistic picture. For the sake of simplicity we can make inequality adjustments at least in respect of the above mentioned basic and essential components like food availability (magnitude of hunger), drinking water facilities and housing etc. Proportional negative adjustments for deprivation should be made in the calculation of the HDI on the basis of the size of the population of a country not getting these basic facilities.' --by Ram Karan - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram.karan.b (talk • contribs) 01:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:TALK page, not a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to rename page to "United Nations Human Development Index"

On the subject of the name "Human Development Index" vs. "United Nations Human Development Index". First of all, it is not clear that any organization outside the UN has adopted the language or rhetoric of "human development". It isn't obvious that development is a single parameter statistic, and it isn't obvious what "development" means, or why it should be defined in terms of income, schooling, and life expectancy (and nothing else). I see little point in allowing this article to parrot a UN-centric world-view without acknowledging the fact that the HDI is linked to the UN. Packing such diverse data into a single number implies some kind of fungibility of "development" by which I mean that the HDI can remain unchanged when higher income is substituted for fewer years of schooling or shorter lifespans. I don't know what this means. On the surface it sounds ridiculous and meaningless. It is easy to speculate that there is some political mileage to be gained by using a single development index, but I think Wikipedia should clearly indicate to the reader that the content of the page is more or less an advertisement for the UN's rhetoric of "human development" by prefixing the title to the article with "United Nations". The HDI should be blamed on the UN everywhere it is mentioned on Wikipedia. The UN is responsible for the reports. In the country info boxes It should be called the "UN HDI" (instead of the HDI) to indicate that the number is the result of a UN report. So, to put this in the context of Wikipedia, the article in its current state is highly WP:POV on the pro-UN side. By using the term "HDI" the UN is trying to imply that human development is relevant to national interest, which is highly WP:POV. The minimalist view of government is that there is little or no relevance, and the maximalist view is that there is relevance. To elaborate, the minimalist view is that "human development" should be left to institutions of society (religion, academy,...) other than national governments. The neutral point of view of Wikipedia implies that no choice between these alternatives should be made a priori. As it stands, the fact that Wikipedia allows this article to exist with its current name and content shows that it is pro-UN with the attitude that "human development is a national concept". In order to make this WP:NPOV, the reader should be told instead that "the UN believes that human development is a national concept", and the title of the article should reflect this change in attitude. There should be no doubt in the reader's mind where the HDI comes from and who is responsible it. 173.239.78.54 (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:TITLE. The qualification you're proposing is not WP:NPOV, just unnecessarily and unjustifiably long... as is your WP:TL;DR comment. Note, also, that this is a WP:TALK page, not a WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't bother commenting then if you found it 'too long, didn't bother to read'. The point being made by the IP above is valid and worthy of discussion, even if a little long-winded. signed user:1812ahill.

Why the "league tables"?

I'm puzzled as to why the lists on the present page seem to focus on the *top-scoring* countries, when these indices may be especially relevant—or at least as relevant—to the developing world (including the least developed countries). 86.134.203.235 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct, so the article should present the *bottom-scoring" countries as well. HOOTmag (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human Development Index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071220162154/http://hdr.undp.org:80/en/statistics/faq/question,68,en.html to http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/faq/question,68,en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Priority

According to anecdotal evidence, it was Mahbul Haq who pushed and inspired Amartya Sen into developing the capabilities approach. I have not been able to check from clear sources, but do have some indirect evidence for this. The way the article is written suggests otherwise, putting HDI into the framework of capabilities. If someone can confirm, the first paragraph should be re-written to provide the priority sequencing correctly. Asaduzaman (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Renaming : Human Development Index

The reports of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) just talks about: Human Development.

The name of the index in this Wikipedia article is displayed as: Human Development Index (HDI). This is a misrepresentation of the true index name: Human Achievement Index (HAI).

I hope a more skilled Wikipedian is willing and able to correct this article.

--SietsL (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong, the report of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) talks about: Human Development Index. See here. No HAI. HOOTmag (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologize

First I have to apologize for the mistake I made.

The Thailand Human Development Report mentioned the Human Achievement Index (HAI). This is a composite index developed to asses the state of human development at a sub-national level. This index is based on: Health, Education, Employment, Income, Housing and Living Environment, Family and Community Life, Transport and Communication, Participation.

Within the Wikipedia info boxes of the provinces of Thailand is stated: Human Development Index HDI value (ranking). The value and ranking are those of the Human Achievement Index HAI. This causes the misunderstanding. --SietsL (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

1. What article in Wikipedia are you referring to?

2. Why do you talk about that, on the talk page of our article - rather than on the talk page of the article you are referring to? HOOTmag (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The new 2015 Index is out.

p.208. HOOTmag (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hong Kong not a country

I know HK is a especial administration within China, but NOT a country, I think it must be included with the note that is part of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.24.96.246 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

1990 Report

I found the 1990 report: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/219/hdr_1990_en_complete_nostats.pdf I want to include a list of countries on the report but I was wondering how do you put the flags next to the name of the countries? On a more serious note, would including it violate copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holden3172 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Try and experiment.Cantab1985 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Romania is marked as "high"

On the map, Romania is currently marked as "high". It should be "very high", at least, as of 2016.--Adûnâi (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Adûnâi, note that the map does not show a grouping by the HDI values themselves (for that you should consult the map above this one). This map shows a quartile grouping by the ranking of countries with regard to the HDI. The top group shows the top 25% countries in the ranking, the second group shows the top 50-75%, etc. A country can have a quite high HDI but still end up as median if all the other countries have similarly high HDIs and their HDIs perhaps just pass that country's HDI by a tiny bit. Compare to a 100 metres sprint at the Olympics: All are extremely fast runners and are very close to each other in the final timing, but in the ranking, it will always be the case that only 1/4 will get in the top 25%, and half of the runners are always below median—even if the timings differ by just a fraction of a second between the first and the last. So a map like this can be deceiving; by its very nature, it takes away information to focus purely on a ranking.

Note that I now changed the labels to try to make this more clear, although there is still room for improvement. The labels used to be "Very high, High, Medium, Low". That was deceiving; a country could theoretically end up in the Low category with a quite high HDI if all countries had a high HDI. And the Medium category was not medium, but below the median. Currently the labels are "Highest 25%, Above median, Below median, Lowest 25%". It would be better with something like "Highest ranked 25%, Ranked above median, Ranked below median, Lowest ranked 25%", but those labels are somewhat long. --Jhertel (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Table has some errors

I think that the table of HDI values does not match the cited data. The ranking and I think the HDI numbers are correct up to the 24th item, and then are different (the most glaring discrepancy is with Slovakia). Besides, the sources themselves are confusing: the 2014 (and older) HDI numbers are also in the latest report, but the figures do not seem to match those that were released in the previous report... Elwwod (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Are they done?

They haven't released a new report in a long time, I don't think they will. Alex of Canada (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

They will (as far as the HDI is concerned). Please see the chapter: "2018 Human Development Index". HOTmag (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The new blue map

Am I the only one who think that the categories Very high, high and medium HDI all look too similar in colour on the new map? Can't we bring back the other blue map instead? -- Darthdyas (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The second map is inaccurate

I don't understand why the second map, which is said to be based on the 2018 HDI, still has Angola, Swaziland and Cameroon ranked as "low". BeryAb (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The map is still wrong. Rwanda and Burundi are low development, not medium as shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.190.78 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

2014 HDI changes

Apparently, there are some changes also made in 2014. See http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdi_training.pdf], paragraph 6.2.

BlueD954 (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Crimea is Ukraine

This map incorrectly shows Crimea as part of Russia while in the eyes of the overwhelming bulk of the international community, it is Ukraine. Just to put things in perspective, this map also correctly shows all of Cyprus as part of Greece. Crimea, Ukraine should be returned to Ukraine in the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.205.76 (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Your beliefs as to the propriety of Crimea being part of Russia do not count in this general encyclopedia. Consider the reality: Which country's visa would you need to obtain in order to move there?--Quisqualis (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The original 2018 publication is using exclusively Czechia, not the Czech Republic

The original publication "Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018 Statistical Update" is exclusively using Czechia in all tables, including the main Table 1 "Human Development Index and its components", which is reproduced here. Wikipedia should follow the original publication and not change any information at will, including country names.Geog25 (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Geog25! What are you trying to tell us? You sound annoyed. Obviously, English is not your native language, and this may be why your message is obscure to us. Can you please divide the problem into smaller parts and present them one at a time? Feel free to type your message, in your native language, into Google Translate, and paste the English result here.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please be polite and stop offending others. Instead of replying to a legitimate comment, you attack and offend the person who wrote it. Your behavior is simply unacceptable. I was asking why you changed the country name Czechia, which is used in the original publication "Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018 Statistical Update", to the Czech Republic since you otherwise copied all remaining HDI data and country names.Geog25 (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

[tech_notes-1] [1]. Page 2.

[1]