Talk:List of countries by life expectancy

VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|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 Infobox#Countries|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]

Male female age expectancies

The CIA Factbook also includes male and female life expecantcies - this would be interesting to include here.Yzerfontein 16:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added all of the 2007 data, including the male and female numbers, and I omitted the redundant year column, as all of this year's figures are from 2007. Formatting improvements would be appreciated. Caeculus 07:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life Expectancy by United Nations

The United Nations also calculated life expectancy for different countries. The rank and result of UN is slightly differ from CIA The World Factbook. For examples, Japan and Hong Kong is considering the world highest life expectancy ranked by United Nations. But in CIA World Fact Book, Japan is only ranked #7 and Hong Kong ranked #6.

So I am considering whether we should add United Nation figures to the table. Joe3600 12:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. Links:

United Nations Human Development Index - International Life expectancy comparison.

I don't necessarily think there's any harm in adding an external link to the study, though its life expectancy estimates are old (2004), and it excludes a number of smaller entities such as Andorra, Macau, and San Marino. That's why Japan and Hong Kong appear to be "ranked" higher. Maintaining consistency and using estimates from the Factbook exclusively is probably our best option. Caeculus 07:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The data from the CIA world factbook seems more complete and up to date. --Lobizón 19:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushnik?

Seem like vandalism or what is Kaushnik. RGDS Alexmcfire

what?

this seem compeletely different from the CIA ? how can oman's fly a high jump to 75 years? and how did saudi arabia's get so low to 72 years, dont beleive this! get the cia world factbook on again please. 81.132.142.209 12:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA Fact Book methodology is unclear and its figures differ from those of European census authorities making its numbers dubious. I'll get the census authority nu,bers for Oman and Saudi Arabia and post it here later (if they're available online). --Polaron | Talk 13:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oman

72.5 (1999) [1]
74.2 (2005?) [2]
75.6 (UN estimate for 2010)
74.2 (UN estimate for 2005)
74 (2006 estimate by Population Reference Bureau) [3]
Time series life expectancy (official): [4]
Compare to CIA estimate of 73.6 for 2007

saudi arabia

71 (2000) [5]
71.9 (2003) [6]
71.6 (UN estimate for 2005)
72.8 (UN estimate for 2010)
72 (2006 estimate by Population Reference Bureau] [7]
Compare to CIA estimate of 75.9 for 2007

Wrong

Why do many people source CIA World Factbook if it's unclear? It's more accurate and shows 2007 estimates. People find the previous list more useful and more accurate, so what's the point changing it? we'll have a vote then ok?

How do you know it's more accurate? How about we compare the CIA, UN, and national census authority figures for the less developed countries and see which agree with each other? --Polaron | Talk 13:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who want's CIA List?

Who wants the UN List? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.207.121 (talk) 12:02, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

ok ok

But Polaron, what I think is, you should have just left the CIA list, there was no mistakes or it wasn't harmful to anything, it was just a list by CIA! you should have just left it.