Talk:List of countries by Human Development Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured list star List of countries by Human Development Index is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.


Contents

[edit] edit colours!for version 2006

Colors dont coresponde !!!

[edit] VOTE!! - HDI in country infobox/template?

[edit] Macau

0.909... eventhough it's not technically ranked we should list it the same way we do as Taiwan... JUST LOOK AT THE ARTICLE

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)


[edit] EU average

EU average is 0,907 if it interests anyone. Alensha 18:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it in the HDI report (though I might've missed it). Where's this from? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
From adding the scores of the member states and dividing it by 25. Though it might be not the best way to find it out. Alensha 20:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I figured that. Original research notwithstanding, I think a better way to determine a figure for the EU would probably involve collating similar data for the EU countries in toto (total GDP per capita PPP, etc.) and plugging that data into the HDI equations. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
oops, I didn't think it counted as original research, it was simple mathematics :) anyway, I suspected this might be not the perfect result, that's why I wrote it on the talk page, not in the article. :) Alensha 22:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem! I might've done the same and, just for curiosity, might proceed as suggested above. And if it helps any, I recall seeing a paper somewhere that applied and analysed HDI criteria to Canadian provinces and territories. I'll get back to you shortly.  :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think, since so detailed knowledge for each country exists, that a calculation based on a weighted average of the countries' popuplations would be the most precise measure. For example, Germany would weigh a factor 20 more than, say, Norway. A rough estimate would put the EU HDI somewhere between 0.935 and 0.940.Crispy 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Font tags

Why are they allowed to live? Anyone would mind if I remove them? /Grillo 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you mean colour tags, no – the use of these tags were agreed upon previously to render HDI categories throughout Wp. If you mean something else, you'll have to elaborate. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China, etc.

Re: this mass revert of my edits

"Countries – specifically, UN member states – fall into three broad categories based on their HDI" vs. "Countries—almost all the UN member states and a couple of special territories—fall into three broad categories based on their HDI"

Not all those on this list are UN member states: Hong Kong, Palestine, and the Vatican are not. There are member states that are not given HDI's.

I will rephrase this to UN members and other territories. Only two non-members have assigned HDI values, and values for other member countries are unavailable. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Taiwan" vs. "Republic of China|Taiwan, Province of China"

This is a UN list, so let's stick to UN terminology just like how an Olympic medalist list will use "Chinese Taipei". None of Wikipedia's lists have "Taiwan" on its own (it's usually some variation that mentions "Republic of China") because Kinmen and Matsu are part of Fujian, not Taiwan province (like Penghu), or part of Taiwan island (like Taipei and Kaohsiung). And im not the one enforcing these rules!

Yes. Simplicity: piped (wikifying) text allows for the rendition of one term yet linking to another. Generally, Taiwan is sufficient unless notations/distinctions of government are applicable, in which case Republic of China is appropriate; in cases of territoriality, Province of China or Taiwan, Province of China is apt. Other country long-form names in the HDI list and elsewhere have been similarly minimised (e.g., Libya, Macedonia) and to do otherwise is superfluous and may promote confusion. And pot, meet kettle: mainland China is indicated nowhere in the HDI report. I will not succumb to overpoliticising what should be a simple list. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"For UN purposes, data for China does not include the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) (with a unique HDI entry), Macau (SAR), or Taiwan." vs. "The figure for "China" consists of only the data for mainland China and does not include Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan."

What do you mean by "for UN purposes"? This phrasing is imprecise and confusing. Is this true for everything the UN publishes? The answer to this question is not relevant here. We only need to state what is relevant, no more and no less. For those needing to consult this footnote at all, they are going to want to find out whether the data includes HK, MO, or TW, knowing that HK, MO, TW may or may not be included in the figure due to their political status. Whether these are SARs or renegade provinces is not really relevant, because for this note to be useful, we only need to know that these territories are "possibly or somewhat part of China". And why spell out "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" in full but leave "Taiwan, Province of China" abbreviated?

Arguably, the current wording is just as confusing. The prior rendition is relevant and explicit – consult the HDI report, which notes that Hong Kong and Macau are SARs and that the UN does not include them (with Taiwan PoC) in assessments for China. Moreover SAR is a necessary initialism noted in the HDI report above and below (though this can be striken from the list, but should remain expanded in the note below); similarly Province of China is not abbreviated and (given a piped link) might be necessary only in the appropriate context. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"The HDI report does not include data for "Taiwan, Province of China" (territories governed by the Republic of China), which the UN does not recognise." vs. "The HDI Report released by the UN does not include data for "Taiwan, Province of China" (the term used by the UN to refer to the territories governed by the Republic of China, which the UN does not recognize as a state)."

Please read the former option more closely. It is trying to assert that the UN does not recognize "Taiwan, Province of China". If the UN did not recognize it, then why did it bother stating in its report that it does not have a HDI for "Taiwan, Province of China"? What the UN does not recognize is the "Republic of China", not "Taiwan, Province of China". We want to be also clear here that "Taiwan, Province of China" is UN terminology and not Wikipedia terminology and that by "recognize" we mean "recognize as a state". In addition, please follow the MoS and use "ize" endings for UN-related topics: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling)#British_English_with_-ize_.28Oxford_spelling.29.

The see also section is redundant with Template:Lists of countries and is not needed.--Jiang 12:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have; I will tweak this ... the current version is little better. Actually, the intention should be to convey that the UN doesn't recognise the government of the Republic of China, not the existence or recognition of the Province of China or Taiwan (territory) in general ... the latter two of which are noted in the HDI report (i.e., T,PoC). Besides, any such notations may be excessive (see below). RoC should only be noted when referring to their HDI self-assessment. And in this instance (if debate persists), Wikipedia terminology should agree with UN terminology.
As for spelling: while I won't buck the MoS, it is neither a guideline nor policy.
Agreed about list of countries blurb.
I'd also like to point out that this should not be excessively politicised as might be elsewhere in Wp. Despite the lists of countries already in Wp, there is no convention (to my knowledge) for the rendition of Taiwan/PoC/RoC in Wp. My aim is simplicity yet accuracy and I won't belabour this. If agreement cannot be reached regarding this, I will restore a severely parred down note on the list/HDI pages that exclude any references beyond those in the HDI report. Thank you. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If you look at every other list of countries in Wikipedia, you'll likely see Taiwan listed in some variation of "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Republic of China", "Taiwan (Republic of China)", "Republic of China on Taiwan", "Taiwan (ROC)" (I list all these variations because some users have been going around and changing these back and forth) and not "Taiwan" on its own. This is a longstanding convention, based partly on an interpretation of wikipedia:naming conventions (Chinese). That is, if we want to follow wikipedia convention, we would be inserting the name of a polity into a UN-issued list for which the UN itself would never recognize or acknowledge to exist. I'd rather we copy word for word what the UN calls the individual entries on the list (e.g. "Occupied Palestinian territories", etc) so there arent any inherent contradictions, but I don't really care that much. --Jiang 04:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The link to "province of China" is not relevant here becuase the link leads to an article on a Chinese administrative division. Such a primary-level division subordinate to the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China does not exist over Taiwan, and the PRC does not claim that it exists. Our article states, "Theoretically, provinces are also the first level division of the Republic of China on Taiwan, though this role has been greatly diminished." Thus, the link in this context is highly misleading. The UN is using "Taiwan, Province of China" to refer to all territories administered by the ROC, which according to the definition of "province of China" includes four provinces/provincial level entities: Taiwan Province, Fujian Province, Taipei City, and Kaohsiung City. The PRC also recognizes Kinmen and Matsu, which are excluded from ISO 3166-2:TW because they are not part of "Taiwan, Province of China" because they are nominally part of Fujian province. But Kinmen and Matsu are not included in the figures for China, so when we speak of "Taiwan, Province of China", we dont really mean a real province with a provincial governor, people's government, etc. but diplomatic-speak to denigrate the status of the Republic of China. The actual term redirects to here, where it is explained. I really dont see the logic of linking to an irrelevant article.--Jiang 04:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, it is relevant since it's directly noted in the HDI report. The above, though not necessarily unbelievable, is your opinion. If we wish to revert to an 'unadultered' list (and I see no pressing reason to yet), arguably the 'Taiwan' entry should only be included as an endnote (since this territory is not included on p. 328 of the 2005 report), not as an entry in the 'unavailable' category.
And while you've noted one convention, it's not policy. As above, this is a simple list: please do not insinuate arbitrary and extraneous interpretations (better found in the appropriate articles) beyond those in the HDI report. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What is noted in the HDI report? The term "Province of China"? As I've stated before, our article on "Province of China" makes no mention of it being applied to the Republic of China government as a whole, but uses it in a way to mean a administrative division directly subordinate to the central government (whether this be the PRC or ROC). I'm not saying we cant call Taiwan a "province of China" - I'm saying that what our article on province of China has the term to mean is very different from what the UN has the term to mean. Can you explain how this is not true?

The country template (arguably, only entities that qualify for a countries template are even considered here) exists at Republic of China, not Taiwan. The HDI data is tied with the infobox in the countries template so the link should head there. We have either 1) wikipedia convention (some variation incorporating "Republic of China" or at least pipelinking it) or 2) UN convention (use of "Taiwan, Province of China"). It is best to lead readers to articles where they will find the relevant info the easiest - the easy to find population, area, GDP, etc. data are all stored at Republic of China. --Jiang 05:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The report notes "Taiwan Province of China", with or without comma, not "Republic of China". There are appropriate linkages to RoC, etc. in the HDI list/article without overpoliticising it.
To that end: frankly, I'm unconcerned with what the Wp article says or your recitation/interpretation of what it says (e.g., 'denigration'): I'm resorting to what's in the UN report. And in Wp it's not necessarily about "truth": it's about verifiability ... and I will not confirm nor deny your position.
FYI: who do you think lead the charge to include the HDI throughout Wp, not to mention adding the list to it? Take a peek and get back to me. Similarly, I've added a note to the RoC infobox as a conciliation (and with citation), not as approval. This is a simple list, not requiring many of the overcomplexities and politicising recently introduced regarding these east Asian territories. In summary: until you can demonstrate why your interpretation/edits should usurp others (and you haven't, though I can be compelled otherwise) or unless a groundswell supports your edits, I'll make edits based on commentary above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've tweaked recent edits (e.g., China is noted in the report and relevant, and SAR is cryptic enough that expansion is necessary), but I'm satisfied with the current version. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

China is noted in the report, but the UN means People's Republic of China, not "the Chinese civilization". This word "China" is relevant, the link is not.

The UN and Wikipedia have a very different set of naming conventions. What the UN calls "Taiwan, Province of China", Naming Conventions (Chinese) calls "Republic of China" or in some cases "Taiwan". Since wikipedia articles follow wikipedia naming conventions, the relevant information exists under the naming conventions-preferred names, not the UN names. It logically follows that we should use pipelinks. except you say we dont need to follow UN terms, but then you later say that we shouldnt even link to "Republic of China" (even if it's not visible as a pipelink) since the UN does not use that term. Now is that a contradiction?

If what wikipedia articles say is not your concern, then don't link to anything at all, lest you accidentaly link to a disambiguation page!--Jiang 05:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is your POV and logic. You've just proved my point – whose to say that the China article (as civilisation, a catch-all) doesn't or shouldn't comprise the PRC, et al. and be used? The article states just as well, and the hatnote links to PRC article anyway.
I realise there is a dichotomy between Wp content/naming conventions and articles (with no general objection about linking to them, your snide comment aside) and notions outside of Wp. However, this does not obviate them and I will not succumb to opining when source text/information for this UN-construct is clear. In this report, the UN notes China ... so that link will remain.
Furthermore, as I've cited before: if recent editions are or remain wholly contentious, I will remove any extraneous notions not found in the HDI report that cannot be verified. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The scope and definitions provided in the China article, or any other article in wikipedia, is arrived at through consensus. The consensus at Talk:China is that the article should be about the cultural and geographic entity (i.e. the civilization) and that information on specific polities (e.g. People's Republic of China) be given individual articles. Trying to link to China when you mean specifically the People's Republic of China or porcelain does not change this consensus and does not change the content in the China article, while creating confusion on the part of the reader who click on the link fully expecting some sort of country template. It is rather inconsistent to link to People's Republic of China in the list itself, but to link to China in the footnote. The figure in question is one and the same.

I really do not understand why we can allow Ireland to be pipelinked, but not China or Taiwan. If China were really a disambiguation page (like how some other language encyclopedias have done to the article), would you still be insisting that we link there, calling it a "UN-construct"?

Other things that I think need to be changed: The UN uses "Occupied Palestinian Territory" for the West Bank and Gaza, but instead of linking to the redirect to Palestinian territories, we link to an article on an administrative organization. What is especially jarring (for Greeks at least) in the current list is the listing of Macedonia on its own. If we want to avoid unnecessary politicizing or POV, we can just use UN names, and assign the POV to the UN. The problem will then be solved.--Jiang 06:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Arguably, notions regarding these territories aren't one and the same. China is pipelnked to PRC in the list, and I see no difficulty linking it to the catch-all article below (currently) where PRC is also linked again. Similarly, discussions are underway to possibly move Republic of Ireland/Ireland and there's ongoing debate regarding Macedonia (where you'll observe the conciliatory note regarding the name, which I devised after discussion and has held) – in any event, both are already pipelinked properly in the HDI list. Moreover, re Palestinian territories: while not a UN member, a judgement call was made at that time (through a rough consensus, with little debate since) to enter information in the article for the political entity (Palestinian National Authority) since it has an infobox harking of the country infobox/template. The decision might've been different if it was elsewhere etc.
While I see little reason to restore lengthy names from the report, I wouldn't object. If that's the case and to truly nix any possible politicising of the list, however, the Taiwan entry would have to be removed from the list (since it's not in the HDI report) with mere note below.
In summary: I generally disagree with your assertions above, and do not see evidence of a consensus here or (frankly) elsewhere. Until a groundswell says otherwise, I see no reason to proceed as you suggest. And this discussion is getting quite lengthy and circuitous, from which I will disengage hereafter unless there's reason to the contrary. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you see no problem in pipelinking Ireland, Macedonia, or Palestine (despite differing UN and international conventions), then I see no problem in pipelinking Taiwan.

The first two are bona fide UN members in the list; PNA is already ambiguous but a compromise given its inclusion in the HDI list. Taiwan/RoC is not included in the list: if you wilfully insinuate such a link unnecessarily (and given objections above), I will nix its entry from the list and pare down the note. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Macedonia does not exist as a UN member. The UN member is called "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as a condition of its membership. read up here.--Jiang 08:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The "China" in the list itself and in the footnote refer to the same thing and should point to the same link. Since PRC is linked to a couple words later in the same line in the footnote, the first link is not necessary.--Jiang 08:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion, and I disagree. Edit as you will, but I will correct. And that's it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
as easy as it's for you to dismiss everything as "my opinion", then it is the same for me to dismiss everything as "your opinion". you see no difficulty linking it to the catch-all article below (currently) where PRC is also linked again? well tough. that's your opinion. Of course, this approach is bad wikiquette. Wikipedia operates on consensus - if what I am posting is incorrect or unverifiable, then show what is correct or how it is not verifiable. Simply dismissing things as "opinion" and deliberately trying to incite an edit war will not do.--Jiang 08:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Pot, meet kettle. This isn't discussion: this is quibbling over minutiae that (as stated above) arguably shouldn't even be in the article. You have not compelled for proposed changes and (despite your evocations of consensus) have not been arrived at through consensus. Tough. We all have opinions: given the above, however, it's clear that your insistance on using RoC in this simple list – when said term isn't used in the HDI report, or consistently in Wp – demonstrates clear bias. Wp needn't pander to this: for those reasons, I needn't and won't debate this further (unless necessary) and will disengage from this discussion. (Of course, others can and should comment.) In the interim, said edits will be judiciously dealt with and if anyone precipitates an edit war, it won't be me. End communication. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for gutting the names and related edits. :) To that end, I've tweaked the entries/names to reflect those in the UN HDI report ... except for Macedonia, where I nixed [T]he from the longform. This should not be contentious and I'm fine with it. (See, I'm easy.) I'm sure we can move forward in building Wp. Thanks again for your engagements and accommodation! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] According to the report..

According to the report, Hong Kong, as listed in the table, is written as "Hong Kong, China (SAR)". (PDF Google cache) — Instantnood 18:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As well, renditions on p. 213 of the report do not render the names as edited, nor spell Macau with the "o", nor include "the". I will copyedit. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Nevertheless, I'm afraid, that for UN purposes, and as according to what the PRC designates, islands such as Kinmen (Quemoy) and Matsu are not considered part of what's covered by "Taiwan, Province of China". The islands are considered by the PRC, and possibly consenquently by the UN, as part of PRC's Fujian, Hainan and Guangdong provinces. — Instantnood 19:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
TY. However, as you can see above, there have been varied attempts to add details to the notes that -- arguably -- do not even belong in this listing, which should hark of the UN report. The UN report is explicit and indicates "Taiwan, Province of China": I see no reason to introduce dialectic where links to apt topics are already sufficient. Moreover, it is bad form to indicate et cetera in a listing where there's already contention over usage of terms. I will be be copyediting this again. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Please kindly be reminded that the UN designation of "Taiwan, Province of China" does not entirely correspond to the extent under effective control of the ROC. — Instantnood 19:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Noted. Apropos: current wikilinks/articles already address this. Also be reminded that this is a simple list based on the UN report, not a political manifesto about Chinese or Taiwanese territoriality or sovereignty. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for trimming the text. — Instantnood 21:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
NP! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Update

This list needs to be updated, has the Un released a new report for 2005?--Moosh88 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not yet (I think) ... but when an updated report is released, the article and list will be updated forthwith. Stay tuned! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please update List of statistically superlative countries when this does happen? --Liface 05:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] France Ad?

How come there is an ad for france in the HDI box hmm? Propaganda if you ask me.

[edit] Macao

Macao is not on here but HK is. Either they should both not be there or both be there, because they are of equal stature as SARs. The Person Who Is Strange 20:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

While, yes, they are technically equal, the entries in the list are per the UN Human Development Report. An HDI was calculated for Hong Kong but not for Macau, thus ... Cogito ergo sumo 07:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] need to update

from 2003 figures to 2006 – due out November 9th 2006.

[edit] Some edits for FL status

I've made some edits to try to bring it close IMO to FL status.

  • The notes/references have been tidied and use templates to ensure the essential info is captured. The article no longer has external links in the body-text or anonymous hyperlinks.
  • The lead recently gained much of the text from HDI. I've re-wikilinked this and trimmed it a bit to remove stuff which is merely elaborating on the summary paragraph – we don't need to expand the topic to any depth here, since that's what the other article is for.
  • I've found a ref for Mahbub ul Haq's contribution.
  • I've dropped the second map, which didn't add anything other than a cruder grouping into high/medium/low. Both maps are repeated on the HDI article, so really we don't need too many copies.
  • In keeping with FLC 1f and 2b, I've broken the table into sections so that the TOC can navigate to each.

Colin Harkness°Talk 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not ranked

Is including a "Rank" column for the tables under the section heading "Not ranked" really necessary? Littleghostboo[ talk ] 07:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan HDI

The HDI for Taiwan seems to be badly calculated. I've calculated it myself using the methodology used in the official report and it results in 0.912 NOT 0.910 as the National Statistics Institute of Taiwan says! I've calculated it in an Excel sheet and all other HDIs I've calculated match except this one. Try it! —☆ CieloEstrellado 07:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List according to year

Maybe we should rename this article as List of countries by 2004 Human Development Index etc, etc? __earth (Talk) 10:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, or some date included in the title for reference and overlap when future reports come out. -- Stbalbach 17:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This really needs to be updated

Zimbabwe does NOT rank LOW in the Human Development Index. Information stated here does not match what is on the country's page. At all!

[edit] Organization of the past data

Copied from my talk page. Please discuss Alex Bakharev 23:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alex, I moved List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index to List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index,2006, Since this article includes data for year 2006, (also List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index, 2005 available.)

  • Please check the position, many pages refers to original page(I saw later), there is a mistake or not.
  • It is necessary to have an article with original name(ie.List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index) as (like an ambuq. page) main page which include links to articles named with years.

like as;

Main article;:List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index include the follovings; ---

For 2004 index see List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index, 2004
For 2005 index see List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index, 2005
For 2006 index see List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index,2006

etc. --- I need your urgent help. Regards MustTC 14:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Mustafa just now we have only two such lists: the most recent and 2005. The List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index is redirected to the most recent and the historical data are referenced from there. I think it is reasonable, but other layouts are discussable. I will copy your message on the talk page of the article. Alex Bakharev 23:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. While it would be useful to have past ones, there's no reason for the current one to have the 2006 in its name. It is unarguable, that people will almost certainly be looking for the current list unless specified otherwise. So, on that note, I moved it back. It would've had to have been moved again either way since the punctuation was wrong. - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've raised objections to these yearly snapshots at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by Human Development Index, 2005. BTW: If the snapshots are kept, I think the current one should include the current year and the main name then just becomes a redirect. That will satisfy those "looking for the current list". That way, you don't have to keep moving the article each year, and it is clear to the reader the date on which the report is based. Colin Harkness°Talk 00:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map is wrong

I think this map is wrong. It shows Canada and Sweeden the darkest green, which would mean they are 9.5+, which they are both not. And if they are wrong, I am not sure how many else could be wrong...I think someone needs to fix it. Brainboy109 December 2nd 2006, 15:15 (UTC)

Opps! I just realized it was correct. Sorry... December 2nd 2006, 15:41 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index_a62a.html"