Talk:List of Latin American subnational entities by Human Development Index

Questionable
This data is interesting for comparing the relative wealth of different parts of Latin America, but I question its accuracy. How is it possible that a nation's HDI can be greater than the HDI of any of its component parts. Some of this data is the same as the article List of Argentine provinces by HDI, which is highly suspect, since it lists every Argentine province (and the city of Buenos Aires) as having a lower HDI than that of the overall nation. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You right, the HDI of Argentine province were wrong, because their data was over valued in 1995, now we have the official UN data with 1995, 2000, 2002, 2004 with the last report in 2005. --Prodigynet (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How are the HDI of all provinces of Argentina lower than the entire country? The last 2008 report says that the HDI of Argentina is 0.860. Even the 2004 data says that HDI is 0.849 = http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf . The Buenos Aires Province, Cordoba Province, Mendoza province and Santa Fe province have 90% of Argentina population, and they HDI from this list is lower than 0.800. How it could be if the entire country has a HDI of 0.849 in 2004? This list is complety wrong, and I remove the Argentina data until we have a better data.--Italodal (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That "2008 report" is not talking about HDI of all provinces of Argentina, that report is only data estimated between countries, please don't change anything without official references because you can be blocked.--TownDown (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Here the reference
Here is the province of Buenos Aires's HDI from 2001: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/nationalreports/latinamericathecaribbean/argentina/Argentina_Buenos%20Aires_2004_2005_sp.pdf In the page 293 says that in the year 2001 the HDI is 0,854. In the Wikipedia article says that the Buenos Aires province HDI in the years of 2000 and 2002 are 0,7816 and 0,7656. The source is the UN itself. I Think we shoud remove these wrong data. The two links sources of this page don't work. Please TownDown try to be more moderate. Thank's.--Italodal (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italodal (talk • contribs)

Stop to put Argentina confliting data
TownDown, stop to change this page without use the talk page. I would be forced to report you. Here the source why we can't uses the data from Argentina: ''¿Se puede comparar el IDHP entre diferentes países?A diferencia del IDH, el IDHP sólo se elaboró para estimar discrepancias regionales en nuestro país. Distintos países han construidos distintas versiones del IDH, adaptándolas a las peculiaridades de los distintos contextos.''http://www.undp.org.ar/desarrollohumano/preguntas_frecuentes.html, in English : '''Can you compare different of IDHP between countries? Unlike the HDI, the IDHP was only developed to estimate regional discrepancies in our country. Different countries have different versions of the HDI constructed, adapted to the peculiarities of different contexts.''' --Italodal (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --TownDown (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello TownDown how are you ? Here is the source why we can't use the data from Argentina: '''¿Se puede comparar el IDHP entre diferentes países?A diferencia del IDH, el IDHP sólo se elaboró para estimar discrepancias regionales en nuestro país. Distintos países han construidos distintas versiones del IDH, adaptándolas a las peculiaridades de los distintos contextos.''' http://www.undp.org.ar/desarrollohumano/preguntas_frecuentes.html. In English : '''Can you compare different of IDHP between countries? Unlike the HDI, the IDHP was only developed to estimate regional discrepancies in our country. Different countries have different versions of the HDI constructed, adapted to the peculiarities of different contexts.''' The UN global report, and the reports of the other countries (except Argentina and Chile) use the GDP per capita (PPP). In other way Chile and Argentina use the average income per capita, and not the GDP per capita (PPP). I think we should to remove the data of Argentina and Chile, or delete the article, because the information is wrong. Thank's. --Italodal (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please don't use bold text like that, it's considered as risque and personal attack.--TownDown (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong here
Nothing is wrong here, all reports are correct, the article clearly says how reports are used, this article is not part of the United Nations statistics division and we can use all data required here from Argentina, Japan or anything else, if it is necessary, and Argentina is part of Latin America and we have its hdi report here, that's why it works so well for everyone.--TownDown (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please TownDown, we can't make a list with two differents things. It is the same thing if we make a list comparing height to weight. Weight is related to the height but the two things are not the same, for example who would be first, a person of 70 kg or a person of 1.70 m ? We can't mix things, and we are making it in the HDI list (which uses the GDP per capita PPP) with the IDHP (which uses the average income in the case of Argentina and Chile). Thank's.--Italodal (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly it's the same thing, what part of HDI is not understandable?, I don't wish to be uncivil, I never was. Well, I know perfectly how HDI works, which usually also implies whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country, the HDI combines normalized measures of life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP per capita for countries worldwide, all HDI combines three basic dimensions (life expectancy, education and standard of living), and they have been used since then by UNDP. Please don't use false arguments with this, first you removed Argentina, now you want to include Chile, please let it go. --TownDown (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The methodological problem goes beyond Chile and Argentina
The HDI is a index that contains 3 variables, education, life expectancy and income. In the case of the income we have differences between the composition of the HDI of countries. For exemple, the UN list uses the GDP(PPP) per capita, the Argentina list uses the avarege income in Argentinian Pesos, the Chile uses the average income in Chilean Pesos. Costa Rica uses the electricity consumption etc etc. We can only make a ranking with a standard methodology. The UN uses the GDP per capita ajusted by the power purchasing parity. This is the only way to compare the income of different countries without problem in exchange rate, inflation etc. Some countries as Uruguay uses the infant mortality in the composition of its HDI.--Italodal (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see many users explained to you why you shouldn't revert or delete this article. Let me explain to you with my own words, well, maybe you're missing something here, this article is not talking about a 1 single ranking list with the same methodology or many methodologies, this article is a top list of latin american subnational entites according with hdi reports, clearly says This report is based on the information from the high percentages in Latin American countries, and it also says the years of these reports. Thank you. --Prodigynet (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is only a parcial list built with methodological comflitantes data. I have more than a source here: ¿Se puede comparar el IDHP entre diferentes países?A diferencia del IDH, el IDHP sólo se elaboró para estimar discrepancias regionales en nuestro país. Distintos países han construidos distintas versiones del IDH, adaptándolas a las peculiaridades de los distintos contextos. http://www.undp.org.ar/desarrollohumano/preguntas_frecuentes.html. In English : Can you compare different of IDHP between countries? Unlike the HDI, the IDHP was only developed to estimate regional discrepancies in our country. Different countries have different versions of the HDI constructed, adapted to the peculiarities of different contexts

The others users you mentioned were suspended to use wikipedia for bad behavior. I will require technical review for that list.--Italodal (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Those users are retired, they weren't suspended. I just checked all the history page, and I watched all the revertions you did, when are you going to stop?, also the article has been protected two times because of you. I suggest you to stop with your vandalism. The institute for the development of human potential is an organisation that seeks to put human needs first. "You mentioned about peculiarities of different contexts?", all these reports were made by PNUD Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, etc, and this article clearly says the year of each report, it's not a single list. --Prodigynet (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1.2
The page was never protected because me. Are you Prodigynet, TownDown and Jesusmariajalisco the same user? All of you are mexicans, and have the same way to write, and make edits almost in the same time. It's only a question ok? If you know that the reports are made with methodological differences (consumption of electricity in one, GDP in pesos in other, or in another GDP in U.S. dollars) why do you think that every country must be on the same list? The source that I posted clearly says that we can't use the provincial indices for comparison between countries. This source I say: http://www.undp.org.ar/desarrollohumano/preguntas_frecuentes.html. ''Can you compare different of IDHP between countries? Unlike the HDI, the IDHP was only developed to estimate regional discrepancies in our country. Different countries have different versions of the HDI constructed, adapted to the peculiarities of different contexts'' I don't want to be rude or to boring, but this list doesn't make sense. I love to see a list of Latin Americans countries by HDI, but with a standard methodology and not any table--Italodal (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Italodal If you don't agree with the sourced iformation, then please do some research and find realiable data regarding the HDI for Uraguay and Argentina. This is preferred instead of deleting info. I do have to agree that the numbers for some of the cities in Argentina seem a bit low, when as a country the HDI is .860. But again before deleting info, provide alternatives. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, "we are all mexicans"?, that's a personal attack and you can be reported. I just want to tell you about the HDI of a country it is not a summary of provinces or states percentages by the same country. So then, Italodal .. you're discussing the methodological differences right?, let me take what are you talking with this example. For example you must not compare the "Argentina HDI percentage" = 8 with "Argentina's provinces HDI percentages" = 8+8.5+7+8+7/6 = ¿8?. We can't do that. So, this article is not doing that, all the reports were made by PUND departments with the subnational entities, and the article just listed them for reference, but on the top of the list, you can read when all the reports were made by year. Now, the article was protected because vandalism, please I suggest you to understand more what are you talking about without personal attacks. Farewell! --Prodigynet (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Argentinian, I'm Brazilian. When I said "you are all mexicans" was because I think that all of you are the same user, and all of you are from Mexico. Are you Prodigynet the same user as TownDown? Jesusmariajalisco, all the reports are right, the problem are to put them in the same list. To compare them we should to use the same indicators (some reports use the electricity consumption to measure the income and others use the average income in pesos). Even that all reports use only the "income average" (this is not the case of the reports of Uruguay or Costa Rica) we couldn't compare them, because in first place we need to adjust the purchasing power parity (for exemple in Peru with 5 pesos you can buy a soda, but in Chile you can only buy a soda with 30 pesos) the exchange rate, the inflation are different from country to country. When the UN make a report to compare differents countries it uses the GDP per capita ajusted per power purchasing parity to avoid inflation and exchange rates. This list doesn't make this. Is because this problem that we can compare provinces of a country, but not to compare provinces of different countries. This also explain why all the Argentina or Chile provinces' HDI are much lower than the entire country. We have a good exemple here in the province of Buenos Aires. In the year of 2001 when we use the original report of this list,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Argentine_provinces_by_Human_Development_Index, the Buenos Aires HDI is 0,782 (in this case it use the average income in pesos). In other way when we use other methodology the Buenos Aires HDI's is 0,854 (http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/nationalreports/latinamericathecaribbean/argentina/Argentina_Buenos%20Aires_2004_2005_sp.pdf) This is a table built without any technical support, and without any sources in opposed what I already posted: ''Can you compare different of IDHP between countries? Unlike the HDI, the IDHP was only developed to estimate regional discrepancies in our country. Different countries have different versions of the HDI constructed, adapted to the peculiarities of different contexts'' http://www.undp.org.ar/desarrollohumano/preguntas_frecuentes.html.--Italodal (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never said that I'm from Mexico or Mexican, and that it's called as a personal attack and you can be blocked. Well I see you're saying the same thing again about the article, what part of this conversation I need to explain better to you?, I see, you have been warned several times on your talk's page and you don't care. Let me clear this, this article says "this list is based on the information from the United Nations Development Programme to high percentages", because all the reports were made by UNDP in each peculiar country, same method. Otherwise the article clearly says that. Also, there are not IDHP reports. You really can't compare this  with this, it's something that you can't do, because the first is a HDI report of provinces and the second is a HDI report of the province of Buenos Aires not the federal district of B.A. It's not matters if you are from Argentina, Brazil or Pakistan. You must not delete the information only because you don't like it or you're not agree. that's vandalism. --Prodigynet (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I read the rules of wikipedia again and I will undo yours changes again because you don't have any source that support what you are saying. In other way I have one reliable source that says what we can't make this table: '''Can the Provincial Human Development Index (PHDI) be compared between countries? Unlike the Human Development Index (HDI), the PHDI was created only to estimate regional discrepancies within our country. Different countries have created different versions of the HDI, adapting them to the peculiarities of the various contexts.''' http://www.undp.org.ar/desarrollohumano/preguntas_frecuentes.html --Italodal (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Current status
I previously protected this page for edit warring and encouraged the participants to discuss the issue on the talk page. This clearly is not happening and there are long term issues with this page. First, I have no opinion on the issue being disputed at hand and it perhaps better if I don't to remain impartial. Next, it needs to made clear that regardless of how justified users arguments are on the issue and how valid claims of disruptive behaviour is, this is ultimately a content dispute (i.e. a disagreement between established users), and should be resolved as such. However, multiple users have, unintentionally I believe, exacerbated the dispute through inappropriate responses including excessive templating of users, inappropriate accusations of vandalism, and perhaps violations of WP:CIVIL. I think it is better if an amnesty is given for these past actions rather than to dwell on them, and I have decided to unprotect the page to allow normal editing to resume. There will be a lower tolerance from now on however for edit warring, personal attacks e.t.c, and other behaviour which obstructs dispute resolution, and blocks will be issued for repeated violations to any user. Note that administrators can issue blocks for edit warring even if the edit warring occurring does not technically violate the three revert rule. Use of anti-vandalism tools and other reverts without a summary in particular are not on for content dispute reverts, and will not be treated as an exception to the three revert rule. The best way to resolve this is still discussion, this can be via this talk page, but for things like this WP:MEDCAB might work if all users agree. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you.--TownDownHow's going? 23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it turns out there was sockpupperty going on and all offenders are now blocked. I will hence assume this resolved, unless anyone says otherwise. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Italodal you are removing sourced information, unless you can prove it otherwise by providing an alternative source please stop reverting. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can the Provincial Human Development Index (PHDI) be compared between countries? Unlike the Human Development Index (HDI), the PHDI was created only to estimate regional discrepancies within our country. Different countries have created different versions of the HDI, adapting them to the peculiarities of the various contexts. http://www.undp.org.ar/desarrollohumano/preguntas_frecuentes.html

Are you Jesusmariajalisco another sockpupperty?--Italodal (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have been editing in Wikipedia since 2007, please don't accuse unless you have proof. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Jesusmariajalisco, I thought you are TownDown and his tens of sockpupperties because you are also Mexican and wrote in the same articles. But in fact you are more moderate.
 * The sources aren't wrong, all of them are reliable. The problem is put all of them together. I tried to explain to TownDown that there are methodological differences. Chile uses the per capita income in Chilean pesos, Argentina the average income in Argentinian pesos, Costa Rica the consumption of electricity. Recently I noticed that the differences in methodology goes beyond these countries, and each country has a way to compose the provincial HDI. Is because this the HDI for all provinces of some countries are lower than the entire country. The UN built its famous list of HDI, using a variable called GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power(PPP) in USD. It is a way to eliminate discrepancies in the exchange of currencies of different countries, and their inflationary effects. When do you compare the provinces of the same country you doesn't have a problem, for example, the Brazilian Real has the same value in the Amazononas, in Rio de Janeiro or in Sao Paulo, but when you compare different countries, you need the PPP. Who has better purchasing power? A Brazilian who won 1000 Reals or a Colombian who won1,500 Pesos? This list shows huge discrepancies because it doesn't present a stardard methodology to measure the income. Only with the PPP we could. In my opinion this list should be deleted.--Italodal (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This article must be deleted
I realized that not only Argentina and Chile use different methodology, but every country has its own methodology. When the UN built its list of HDI, it makes using the GDP per capita adjusted per power purchasing parity to avoid discrepancies in the exchange rate. This list doesn't use a standard methodology, so it should be deleted. See the the source of each country to see that each one uses its own methodology. Furthers explanations can be seen in the above topic.--Italodal (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish for the article to be deleted you need to go to WP:AfD and make a nomination. I can do this for you if you are struggling. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It must be deleted. You cannot create an article based on the data from different years. Moreover, many countries use different methodologies. It must be deleted. --190.118.172.131 (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Data for Chile nowhere to be found
I cannot find the information for Chile listed here in the given source. Pristino (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also fail to find the data for Chile in the new cited document. This article is a disgrace. Pristino (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Blanked article and redirect
This article is hopeless. I tried to redo the article using reliable, cited data, but after doing Uruguay and Colombia I realized the data are NOT comparable across countries. All countries use different methodologies to calculate subnational HDIs, thus making such a list useless.

This article makes no sense and should be deleted. Pristino (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)