Jump to content

Talk:List of administrative units of Pakistan by Human Development Index

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of districts of Pakistan by Human Development Index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles discussing actual HDI data for Pakistan

[edit]

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1293170/provinces-human-development/

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/PAK.pdf

Ethanbas (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New revision

[edit]

Hello Innocent Paki, I humbly suggest you to stop tinkering with statistical articles in case you are not aware of it. The "2017 report" you are pushing as 2017 data quotes 2015 data if you have a look at the table. The methodology of calculation of HDIs vary along years by UNDP itself. The methodology greatly varied in 1990, 2008, 2017 and 2018 data, reason being this much conflict exists between multiple sources. 2019 report (2018 data) accounted for inequality as well. The data lab source I'm using for sub national HDIs extracts estimates from UNDP reports, does not deviate with UNDP estimates and keeps revised data as well for previous years with changing UNDP methodology, is used on a number of subnational HDI pages for a reason. Punjab and AJK with HDI over 0.7 for 2017 in your version, itself conflicts with Pakistani national average just being 0.56 in same year. In case you still wish to challenge the reliability of my source, you can bring back 2015 data for district versions at best. You can't mix sources with deviating timelines and will be reverted anyway in case you attempt. Further, you don't need to put news sources in a list article. Reports are sufficient. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 23:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel:
Hi Aman.kumar.goel! Thanks for coming to the talk page for discussion. First of all, any unreliable source or blogish link can add the manipulated figures and quote that these figures are taken from UNDP. If you think these figures are taken from UNDP report then please add the source of that particular report directly instead of this indirect link. The source which you added of UNDP figures just shows the national figures but I am questioning about the sub national figures that are present in Data lab source. Where are the sub national HDI figures in UNDP report of 2018?
There is also a big question mark on the reliability and authenticity of this data lab source as UNDP shows the HDI of Sindh in 2015 as 0.640 while this unreliable source of data lab shows the HDI of Sindh in 2015 as 0.534. Same is the case with all other provinces and territories. This means that Data lab figures contradicts with the figures of UNDP. Have you any justification on that? I am also going to remove the section of Trends by UNDP report as it is also based on Global Data Lab. I request you not to indulge in an edit war. If you find a direct UNDP report of subnational figures of 2018, you can add it and change the list at the spot. Innocent Paki (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I have just not been very active for a couple of days. So was a bit late to attend you. You can't just label data Lab unreliable & perennial even if I don't gain consensus for data lab as a reliable source as its been used as a compiler for sub national datas from various reports itself.
":There is also a big question mark on the reliability and authenticity of this data lab source as UNDP shows the HDI of Sindh in 2015 as 0.640 while this unreliable source of data lab shows the HDI of Sindh in 2015 as 0.534." May be a bit harsh. But it is very clear that you here didn't even bother to read to UNDP reports or even edit summary before reverting to your version. UNDP methodology is revised over years. Pakistani HDI stood above 0.6 in 2008 while just 0.56 in 2018. It doesn't reflect that HDI declined but methodology was revised. While HDI of Pakistan in 2017 was 0.562 and projected as 0.560 in 2018, trajectory was shown upwards in UNDP report and even revision of methodology to include inequality too in introduction (if you actually seen the report which now has adopted new parameters too and downgraded and uprated certain states). The trends clearly reflected the existing methodology and they are updated every year per revised methodology hence. You can't use two separate methods to display indicators of 2 different years.
So for your version, you can't use old subnational data in amalgam with new one. Punjab with most of Pakistani population having an HDI of 0.72 against Pakistani national average 0.56 has itself turned list into a mathematically incorrect one. And no, you can't accuse me of initiating an edit war when your tinkering and WP:ILIKEIT edits are just being a disruption to article. Besides the new version of data lab, the best reliable version you can go on is to outdated 2015 district vice version given rest of versions are just mixing up datas.
And if you still can't understand that what I'm trying to state, ask for a simpler manner. I recommend you to go for even older version if you wish to revert me, your version isn't correct and complying with any of both of our sources anyway. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Data Lab isn't a random bloggish index anyway. [1] No point conflicting this version anyway now. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'2023' figures for provincial HDI

[edit]

This is the cited source: (https://globaldatalab.org/shdi/table/shdi/PAK/?levels=1+4&years=2021+2020+2015+2010+2005+2000+1995+1990&interpolation=0&extrapolation=0).

There is not a single mention of data beyond the year 2021. In fact, I cannot find any sources that show provincial HDI figures from 2023. As it stands I do not feel comfortable with these figures being on the page as I do not believe they are accurate.

Using examples, these are the following changes made:

ICT shows a +0.2 increase from 0.659 to 0.859

AK shows a +0.1 increase from 0.592 to 0.692

Punjab shows a +0.1 increase from 0.550 to 0.650

Sindh shows a +0.1 increase from 0.517 to 0.617

KPK shows a +0.1 increase from 0.515 to 0.615

When I tried to find other instances, for example by searching 'KPK 0.615 HDI', the only instance that returns is this wikipedia article. Such increases in HDI do not seem plausible and are out of keeping with established trends (which are found at the bottom of the page). LeoHoffman (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question Regarding HDI figures

[edit]

Is there any reason why an unofficial source is used for HDI figures (Global Data Lab in this instance) rather than the last UNDP Human Development Report for Pakistan (published in 2017). The HDI in both sources vary by quite a big margin and they also delve into why the HDI differs from what the Human Development Report calculates.

https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/pk/HDI-Report_2017.pdf 2A04:4A43:579F:B015:D56C:995B:DB7D:72EB (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad hdi is 0.774 not a single data says 0.659

[edit]

So it should be 0.774 also Azad kashmir is 0.612 while GB is 0.59+ 43.247.122.247 (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think Islamabad is THAT low

[edit]

It cant be lower than Bangladesh 43.247.122.112 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_administrative_units_of_Pakistan_by_Human_Development_Index&oldid=1255594315"