Talk:Happy Planet Index

message: That legend needs to be edited, colors are not sequential, how is someone supposed to know the value of yellow and orange if you give them the value of green and brown?? It needs a scale of colors.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.85.62 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the captions and the article you'll see that the lead map represents the HPI 2009, whereas the map in the section "Views" only represents one component of the HPI. Elekhh (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: MAP

message: How is this one measured? It doesn't link anywhere, so an explanation seems in order. Rigadoun  (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be self reported from survey data, which makes me doubt validity of the measure, unless it is thoroughly controlled for cross-cultural differences (ie Are translations of questions good enough, are the measured ideas (constructs) exactly the same for all countries, do the positions on the scale mean the same (does medium satisfaction mean the same, or is it somewhat positive in some, and somewhat negative in other countries), etc.). Without access to the outcomes and analyses of these surveys we cannot assess this part of the measure (some of the poorest may say they should not complain; while multi-millionaires may extensively bemoan the loss of some trivial amount of money - any good survey need to be calibrated to compensate for such things). Arnoutf (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Life satisfaction index

message: This is the kind of content that ultimately discredits Wikipedia. I say this article needs to be removed!
::Agreed.  Seemingly anyone/thing gets a Wiki entry these days.  The other day I saw an entry for a fifth ocean (I thought there were only four?)  And then they want donations to run their servers from ME?  I would love to see WIki's carbon footprint.207.172.166.181 (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is a widely publish though ridiculously flawed study. I do not, however, think it discredits WP - we just report on this study's exsistance, not endorse it. Signaturebrendel 06:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making Wikipedia look ridiculous 

message: I have editted the text below because it implied that there was a linkage between a countries size and the Footprint used in the HPI.  There is no such linkage, so that criticism seems misplaced.
Looking into how the HPI uses the footprint, I thought it would be best to delete the text "Ecological footprint is a controversial measure in itself. For example, large states with a relatively small population will receive a bad  ranking, while the opposite is true of small states with a large population, even if there is no difference in resource consumption per person. Thus, critics have argued that it cannot be used to compare nations."  Because it is a none factual statement--the index does not use the countries actual area, but its ecological footprint, and therefore the index would not have any bias for large or small countries because of the ecological foot print issue.  
From the report on NEF website:
"The ecological footprint (henceforth: Footprint) measures how much land area is required to sustain a given population at present levels of consumption, technological development and resource efficiency, and is expressed in global average hectares (gha). The largest component elements of the foot print are the land used to grow food, trees and biofuels, areas of ocean used for fishing, and--most importantly--the land required to support the plant life needed to sequester CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
Footprint takes account of the fact that in a global economy people consume resources and ecological services from all over the world.  Therefore, a Chiquita plantation in Costa Rica will not count in Costa Rica's Footprint, but rather towards the Footprint of those countries were the bananas are consumed.  For this reason, a country's footprint can be significantly larger than its actual biocapacity.  The Footprint of a country is thus best understood as a measure of its consumption and its worldwide environmental impact."
Enigma foundry 04:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing of criticism of Footprint concept 

message: The "comaprison against poverty" section consitutes OR. Don't get me wrong, I think this study is completely flawed and ludicrous (Denmark - liberal, free, democratic Denmark, ranks below Iran and Columbia!) - but it is not up to us to discredit the study. The comparison with poverty rates in order to discredit the study is unfit for WP as it is our job to cover a subject, not comment on it. Besdides, anyone with half-a-brain will notice that free prosporous countries are ranked below poverty striken ones - no need to point that out in a table. For now I have flagged that section. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: My question is, how does the People's Republic of China, a country which should by all measures fall near the bottom of all three measures, rank so highly on this list?66.222.51.168 07:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Happiness is subjective and does not apply the same values from a society to another. You can argue that Brazil has a deteriorated society, higly crime rates and poverty, but people there are happy because they can overpass life adversities and smile. What is happiness in US is not happiness to China and vice versa, people has different motivations to look the life depending where they live and it's values. About Japan and Sweeden talk about high suicide rates. --Ciao 90 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: China

message: " fairly utilitarian principles " sounds like a fairly loose way of thinking.We all actually make effective moral choices on strictly utilitarian principles.Even those who argue against Utilitarianism use Utilitarian arguments to support their unclear misconception of what Utiltarianism is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruskin (talk • contribs) 10:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point.  But also, that's the point - that striving for health and happiness for all is such a common attitude that it needs little defense.  I've changed 'fairly' to 'general', as I think that's perhaps a little more precise about its vagueness (if that's possible!).  Any other suggestions appreciated.Saamah (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic Premise Hazy

message: I would like to call for a slight re-organisation of this page.  Firstly, there should be a separation between the Outline section, describing the Index, and a new section on the Index's reception or opinions on the Index.  So for example, the last two paragraphs from the Outline could go in such a section.  Also, in order to concretise some of the criticism the Index has received, one could refer to some of its vocal critics, such as Spiked Online.  
Secondly, following what has been said earlier (see OR section), I propose ditching the comparison table with Poverty.  Instead, a comment in the opinions section noting the lack of correlation between the HPI and well-regarded measures of national success would suffice (though, as has been said time and time again, the HPI is about efficiency of well-being, not well-being itself).
I'm not sure what is the appropriate procedure before making these changes - how about I wait a week for comment? Saamah (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will make changes tomorrow, as I have heard no response. Saamah (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-organisation of page

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion|Templates for deletion]] nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Lists of countries}}]] 

message: the pro and cons list as well as the whole views section, is unclear, and apparently biased. it dismisses the critics, saying that the HPI is not a measurement of happiness, next to a map that says it shows the happiest nation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The map can be indeed confusing if you don't read the text. However, in Wikipedia the text has priority. Images only illustrate the text. Elekhh (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

text: @67.176.160.47 The pros and cons list is not supported by any source. I will add a "better source needed" citation. 2604:CA00:169:6BB:0:0:64:6E60 (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  pro and cons list 

message: Most comments in the "Moronic" section are irrelevant as this is not an index of the happiness of the people.  Refer to the definition in the first line of the article... index of human well-being and environmental impact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.121.156 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @203.45.121.156 Agreed. Not to mention opinions should not affect or alter a Wikipedia page. Just because they disagree with it does not mean that it's existence should not be recorded in the free encyclopedia. 2604:CA00:169:6BB:0:0:64:6E60 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Moronic 

message: Well, please to explain, Sir where in the “index of human well-being and environmental impact” does human well being actually go, I mean quite a few of the countries that rate highest also have endemic diseases, parasites and rock bottom poverty, so how much weight is placed on human well being?
Seems more like a fantasy list of the way rich elitists want the world population to live, laboring 12-16 hours a day at sustenance farming with minimal environmental impact. Except of course most rich liberals have never actually had to live burning the wood around them, the constant haze and stench.
Seems like this indicates the only humans whose well being are considered are those of liberal elitist smug in the fact that the peasants are producing for them. 
Just asking, because I think the list place Human Well being at the bottom of the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.140.188 (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE Re Moronic 

message: I haven't found them in the article, they should be in the preface !--Brainsteinko (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What questions were asked to measure HPI? 

message: Good article from Adam Smith institute criticizing the index  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjective Noun (talk • contribs) 08:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism  

message: Vanuatu went from number one to not listed.  Why?Kdammers (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanuatu 

message: http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/happy-planet-index-2012-report
--81.105.62.223 (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 

message: The People in Saudi Arabia only believe that they are happy due Indoctrination.--Aaron Yehuda Wiesenberg (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Saudis really happy? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Happy Planet 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710205843/http://www.happyplanetindex.org/public-data/files/happy-planet-index-2-0.pdf to http://www.happyplanetindex.org/public-data/files/happy-planet-index-2-0.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618151336/http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/ to http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified