Jump to content

Talk:Human Development Index

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yaoyu (talk | contribs) at 23:33, 20 July 2006 (→‎Patriotism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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?

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 the vote 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)[reply]
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 be verified. Unfortunately, the recent addition was neither. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom 10

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

East Timor

East Timor does not have a HDI of 18, it has one of 0.513 (140th) – medium according to its wiki page.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Vatican City?

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

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)[reply]


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?

Iceland

Why isn't Iceland listed on the top 30 countries if it is #2 according to the top/bottom three countries by region section? MissingNo 22:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... ehm... It actually is? I suggest new or stronger glasses/contact lenses. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 20:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't when I posted this - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Development_Index&oldid=57862295 MissingNo 18:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, sorry. Just regular run-of-the-mill vandalism, then. —Nightstallion (?) 22:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel:

Someone needs to decide what continent israel is in... seriously... it can't be both Africa and Asia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.102.142.220 (talk • contribs) 23:00, June 25, 2006 (UTC)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Although living in Taiwan, I agree above POV. Taiwan(ROC) may be take into consideration of top 30 countries, but we should'nt distrub the orgional fact of ranking ....yaoyu

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_Development_Index&oldid=64942663"