User talk:Bontairo

Bontairo

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iryna, you thanked for my contributions and removed them..About use of the word "simple" it is a simple (often criticized as even simplistic) index and it was explicitly named as such by Prof. Sen in reference 2 I provided. Regarding invalid citations I hoped someone will make corrections to them without removing all contributions I made. I have noticed that people cannot understand properly what the HDI is and often consider it as clear evaluation of how developed country is (e.g. Denmark is higher in the index than France, so it is more developed country..) even thought this way of thinking is not supported by UNDP itself. Also, I wanted to underline that human development is one of the concepts of international development and not its synonym. Thanks for the general info about Wikipedia

Hi, Bontairo. Please read the edit comment I left when I reverted to the previous version. I do realise that your edits have been made in good faith, however you need to familiarise yourself with the fundamentals of editing before you start on articles. No one has any problems with correcting grammar, etc. when the contributor's first language is obviously not English however badly formed citations and editorializing (see Neutral point of view) are of primary concern to Wikipedia. Statements such as, "HDI is however less ideologically biased towards egalitarianism than IHDI." are personal opinion and do not meet this criterion.

With regards to your use of 'simple', I have read the source and believe that you have misinterpreted the use of the word within the cited context. If I had believed it to be correct, I would certainly have restored it.

I've also noted that you have simply replicated your edits from 6 November and restored them complete with the original broken references, etc. It is not up to others to clean up your errors. That is simply a courtesy extended by other Wikipedians. Again, I would ask that you make an attempt to learn how to add references yourself (out of courtesy).

Articles can wait a few days while you practice your editing skills in your sandbox and acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am sure you will become a valuable contributor once you get the hang of things. Oh, and please remember to sign your comments on talk pages, as well as leaving an edit comment when you change content in articles. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, okay then I will start editing after I get acquainted with the basics. Let's talk however about issues in my previous contribution.

Why do you think I have misinterpreted use of "simple"? In the source it is stated "So a simple index, the Human Development Index (HDI), was devised..." Prof Sen also described it as "a very crude measure" and initially even opposed creating a single index for human development. So with the spirit of its very developer I believe we should convey information that this measure is just a proxy intended to stimulate political change and not sophisticated analysis (this could perhaps go to Human Development Report).

With regard to "HDI is however less ideologically biased towards egalitarianism than IHDI." it is not that much personal opinion, rather it is logical synthesis of definitions found in Wikipedia: "Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")—or, rarely, equalitarianism[1][2]—is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people" and "The index captures the HDI of the average person in society, which is LESS than the aggregate HDI when there is inequality in the distribution of health, education and income. Under perfect equality, the HDI and IHDI are equal; the greater the difference between the two, the greater the inequality" meaning that IHDI favors equality (just like egalirianism). Best regards, Bontairo (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, my apologies on the 'simple index' issue as it does appear on page 6 of "Human Development Report 2010". I does, however, appear within a context which is not as appropriate to the lead (and the lead in a Wikipedia article is used as a summary of the the subject as an introduction rather than a more protracted analysis). The lead, as currently stands, is a synthesis which gets to the crux of what the HDI is without becoming too convoluted and verbose so early on in the article. I can see an argument for using 'simple index', but it would need to be expanded on to reflect the context. That seems to be a lot of meandering for the reader until getting to the crux of the matter.

Many of the points you have introduced to the lead are actually addressed in the more comprehensive "Criticism" section in which "HDI is however less ideologically biased towards egalitarianism than IHDI." is elaborated on without sounding like an extraneous op ed in the lead where the objective is merely to briefly inform the reader about what the HDI is. If there are points you feel should be expanded on, you should seek to find relevant sections already in existence and elaborate on the material you wish to introduce there.

Unfortunately, I need to keep my response to you brief for the moment as I have various policy and arbitration issues pressing on my time for the next couple of days. If you wish to discuss details you'd like to see further elaborated on, please just leave a message on this page again and I'll get back to you ASAP (although I doubt whether I'll be able to do so before Sunday or even Monday).

I have no doubt that you have some excellent points to make and would be happy to assist you in structuring them as soon as I find a moment. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Iryna that the lead should be a basic summary. The "simple" material is better suited to the "Origins" section but you'd need to provide the appropriate context and add attribution. Regarding "just a proxy intended to stimulate political change" - a reliable source would be required to add something like that and it would have to be rewritten in a more neutral sounding manner. Regarding egalitarianism you stated, "rather it is logical synthesis of definitions found in Wikipedia." This is not acceptable as it violates WP:SYNTHESIS. ---- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]