Talk:The Economist Democracy Index

How come Iran is more democratic than Syria?

• 1. Syrian women do not have to wear veil, they can freely choose how to dress
• 2. Syrian citizens can choose any religion they wish with backup from the government
• 3. Syrian law provides mosques and churches to all citizens
• 4. First lady of Syria has an important symbolic prominent role, while First Lady of Iran is hardly seen
• 5. Syrian women are allowed to work and leave the house
• 6. Sharia laws are forbidden in Syria
• 7. Death penalty in Syria is only used for terrorism, rape and murder, while more often used in Iran for even more crimes
• 8. Syrian women have a prominent role in music and cinema
• 9. Syrian women have seats in the parliament
• 10. Syrian women can choose to divorce...

...while Iran is the opposite.

Shall I give more examples? I really don't get how Iran is more democratic. The idea that Iranian citizens can choose President is really not true. They can choose a number of candidates that are allowed to reign, but in reality they must share the ideas of the governmet - not the people. The Syrian authority have a bigger heart for the human soul than the Iranian.

Under Bashar al- Assads time as President hundreds of political prisoners were released and a steps were taken towards easing media restrictions. Did this ever happen in Iran after the revolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.162.196 (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

The UK position on the list is incorrect. It should be 8.08. There are probably more errors in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.47.135.117 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Claim of errors seconded: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf <get the real list. South Korea and Taiwan are wrong on this one.

You know what, this entire article is a vandalism if you ask me, The Economist is perhaps worst publication to publish any research or data. They are totally unreliable, totally out of sink with the reality and totally flawed and full of inaccuracies.

sigh — ok look, the article is here because the index serves as one of the major indices and fills a unique role as a well conceived index that separates out economic concerns (so for example countries with large indigenous populations are not unfairly down-rated). The article goes out of its way to point out it is in no way a peer-reviewed, unbiased work. If your political slant is gives you a point of contention with the Economist in general that's just great ... but please keep it to yourself or find a useful way to participate: object on substance. Robbiemuffin (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

because the inflamatory nature just keeps getting better and better, I've gone ahead and deleted unsigned and malsigned comments after this. Robbiemuffin (talk)

Iran is a democracy?

Iran has elections, under the watch of U.N. and is probably more democratic than many of the countries currently on the list. Unfortunately, most of the western media have a pro-Israel policy and often misrepresent Iran when it comes to the democracy in Iran today, to name a few, Iran started the first womens games in Mid-Asia/Mid-East, had the first women taxi driver in Mid Asia and also allows biologically homosexuals to have sex change treatments. Iran's constitution is extremely similar to that of Italy including the pope. As far as democracy goes, it concerns nations providing free and fair elections where majority rules, regardless of whether it is secular or not. I will add Iran in couple of days unless someone has a valid and constructive criticism to this.--78.86.159.199 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In Iran you are only allowed to run for office if you are first accepted by the council of elders. A person opposed to sharia law would not be allowed to run for president. This makes Iran no more democratic than China. Also, this is a list published by the Economist and is not to be edited.

Please sign your comments. Iran may be a democracy. That isn't what this index shows. I do wish they showed the constituent parts for each country, it would make questions of this form less common. Robbiemuffin (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unclear map

The map needs to be fixed, it is too unclear as to what country is rated what. QZXA2 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Scale

When the scale is mentioned in the wikipedia article it says "scale of ten" and then links to another wikipedia article named "scale of one to ten". The scale in the economist article is said to be "of 0 to 10", i.e. the equivalence of a scale from 1 to 11. I don't usually edit articles, should I just go ahead and change the link?

 * http://www.economist.com/images/rankings/Democracy.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.82.28 (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 

just do it mate, thats obviously a type-o which someone as observant as yourself should correct :)

obviously though, some people lose control and change things which arent even wrong, or just alter things to their opinion/political persuasion! but its fairly obvous that isnt your intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.48.119 (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Vatican

Where is the Vatican?? Helpsloose (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask The Economist. Micronations aren't listed in general. Cleduc (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably below North Korea... --78.54.179.197 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Vatican doesn't consider itself a Democracy plus it's a tiny state - so why bother trying to measure democracy there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.121.113 (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly an article name move?

I read the pdf version of the article, in order to describe the methology. I noted en passant, that the authors themselves relate their index to a number of other indices, by somewhat different criteria, and resulting in different rankings. With this as a background, I think the title Democracy Index is inadequate, and more pretentious than the report itself. An alternative article name would be Democracy index (The Economist), opening up for articles on other democracy indicies.-JoergenB (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just came to this page to suggest the exact same thing. I agree it does need a name change, as the economist is not an authority in its views regarding democracy, as the article name suggests. Sbw01f (talk)

There's no reason to disambiguate the title until such time as someone creates an article about a different "Democracy Index". The lead of the article should make clear the subject and its context. Mindmatrix 03:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that the naming of this article is consistent with the other names in the Category:Lists of countries by international rankings. (There is also a navigation box, probably with further articles; however, searching each item of the box in order to get an overview is much to cumbersome.) Thus, I just modify the introduction slightly.

However, I still think that we should consider namings showing whose index or rating we report on, in the title, for all these articles. As for now, the article names give the impression that (in objective reality or in the firm opinion of Wikipedia) these articles truly list countries by their "Corruption Perceptions", "Democracy", "E-readiness", "Ease of Doing Business", et cetera, to e.g. Corruption Perceptions (Transparency International) or The Economist's and IBM's index of E-readiness, to mention two possible models.

I actually also feel a bit worried over copyright issues. Is it clear that publishing the entire lists are not copyvios? Was this discussed before, somewhere?-JoergenB (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as replicating the list, there was discussion about this (but not about this list in particular) in 2005 and 2006, though I can't seem to find it now. There's also a policy about copying primary sources. Mindmatrix 19:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The wikisource probably is no alternative. In a sense, providing a summary and linking to http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf the original report] is what this article does; the full text is definitely longer than our quotations, and even the list itself is more detailed in the original. However, the list as quoted (including the ranking) still is an achievement by the "Economist Intelligence Unit", as it stands; and perhaps it's a bit long to quote under "fair usage".

As far as I see, there is no copyright notice whatsoever in the pdf report. On the other hand, the report does be found under the page www.economist.com; and under the same page, after a little search you may find a general terms of usage text, which is very very far from GFDL-compatible. It would be rather nice to know whether someone with a little more understanding of copyright laws checked this in the prior discussion. Else, perhaps we should put a question to our experts.-JoergenB (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a discussion from late 2003 (see Are lists copyright?). There's also this, this, and this. There were some discussions on the Village Pump as well, but I'm not going through that archive. Asking about this at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights is probably the best bet. Mindmatrix 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I let the question go on to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights (since I was not sure whether the discussions you quoted are applicable in this case). Probably, the people watching that page know.-JoergenB (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is stalinist-like totalitarian regime in North Korea, not authoritarian regime! --86.100.66.70 (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, 86.100.66.70, understand why changes from "authoritarian" to "totalitarian" in the document are reverted and will continue to be reverted! This article reports on the democracy index of The Economist. The Economist calls North Korea authoritarian. We report what The Economist writes. It would be a lie to list North Korea as totalitarian in this list, because this is not a list of what countries truly are in reality, but a list of what The Economist says that they are (and of the index they had calculated). The Economist classifies North Korea as "authoritarian", and if we should write that The Economist classifies North Korea as "totalitarian", then we would be lying. The "Democracy index" of The Economist doesn't use the term "totalitarian"; the "worst thing" they call a country is "authoritarian". If you think this is bad, 86.100.66.70, then write to The Economist and ask them to change their classification system!

Actually, I think this kind of opinion is an argument for modifying the name of the article. Obviously, at least one reader/editor thought that the article is about the democracy status of countries in some kind of absolute sense, instead of a listing referring to a specific report commissioned by a specific journal.-JoergenB (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweden at the top!!??

In Sweden we have to wait for four years to be allowed to vote once and then again wait for four years to be allowed to vote once again and so on. Add to that, the referendums in Sweden are not for real only "advisory" to the Swedish political class. In other words you have missed the most important criteria of all: how often can a citizen vote in a correct election or referendum in a democracy! 17:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Heja Sverige —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.248.215 (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is much fail in Sweden nowdays, see the FRA-law --81.172.223.220 (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We have initiated a critical review of the rating for Sweden. Google sweden democracy index review and look for wordpress grundlag. Note, this is serious, not some spurious ranting! We provide links to Swedish sources and experts.[[[Special:Contributions/79.136.76.102|79.136.76.102]] (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)]

As a swede I take great offence at being listed first. It puts our government, who has a penchant for pushing through invasive legislations no matter if it's the left or right block in control of the government, in a far far too positive light. Just google FRA, and all the issues regarding pirate bay. Talk about foreign intererests dictating political policy for Sweden. No offence but things like this puts the credability of the entire thing in serious jeopardy.

You did surely not understand the system of the democracy index. Sure, there is FRA in Sweden and other things, but the Swedes are allowed to CRITICISE it and DEMONSTRATE, show their anger toward the POLITICIANS that came up with that idea.

You think that is allowed in some other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.162.196 (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not an "expert" of any of theese issues, so I realize my critique is just personal opinion. However, I do feel I'm allowed to question the respresentation of the thing. I got the impression that this was sort sort of peer reviewed study from looking at the name alone.

Please make it ABSOLUTELY clear that this is a democracy index by a specific group. I'd go as far as to rename the entire thing "Democracy index FROM/BY xxx" or similiar. Caps for my emphasis & xxx is for the name of the organisation in question.

Annoying username (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert either, but I am from Sweden and I have been living many years in 3 other corners of Europe and I can tell there is a big difference. The FRA-law was just putting a law to a practise used for a few decades, and American interests with a lot of money can of course dictate that PirateBay is a bad thing, but other than this the democracy has very few flaws. The people can vote and start political parties freely, everything is more transparent and visible. That the people were idiots and voted for the wrong party does not mean the democracy is flawed.92.80.100.109 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke ?

I agree with our friend that mentionned that a title such as democracy index is very misleading. It should be clearly mentionned that this index (i feel pain calling it that) belongs to the Economist.

The arab world is not the region most reknown for its belief in western democracy. But come to this part of the world and tell them Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan etc.. are more democratic then Kuwait and you will be laughed at. Might as well include include England in the dictatorships, they don't have a bill of rights or civil codes.

I really find it odd that the United States is at the very bottom of free press countries, just above Togo and mauritania, barely making it into the free speech countries MAKING IT NONETHELESS. I also find it odd how american occuppied Iraq is at the bottom of the democratic countries, just above Pakistan the first in the list of authoritarian regime. Let me guess... america, Iraq or Afghanistan rank at the very bottom, yet just inside countries that respect human rights.

Is this a joke ? So is america and american standards, with all due respect to america, the quantitative criteria used by the economist and reporeters without borders and other "expert" sources.

I'm Kuwaiti and we here in great part consider it a democracy. Given "western democracy" as a criteria (although i don't believe that to be necessary) we would classify ourselves as hybrid regime, for the simple fact that the prime minister is appointed by the emir and not elected. On the other hand, the crown prince (2nd in line) can be prevented from being emir, and its up to parliament to then chose the monarch who has very little practical powers other then appointing the prime minister. England (and the "colonies") are not dictatorship because people realise that common laws and precedents govern england's basic functioning. If that is not taken into consideration England would be a dictatorship and the queen a dictator. Other countries reputations should not be tarnished on the account of the economist's incompetence and its incapability to know other countries common law and precedents. A country like singapore ranked 140 something in the freedom of press cannot possibly be democratic whilst countries ranked 60 are considered authoritarian regime.

This is a very complex and debatable issue, and methodology plays an important role i realise that. I'm simplifying my point of view and that is not enough, especially that this index belongs to the economist and not wikipedia.

PLEASE MAKE IT LESS MISLEADING HIGHLIGHT THE ECONOMIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS INDEX The average joe might think these rankings are universally agreed upon.

What a joke, please upload other sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 07:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous Index

As a Greek, the people who invented democracy, this index is ridiculous. Athenian Democracy had negative voting and osctracism so in that sense not a single country is democratic. However when you break down the word it means the rule of the people. Now tell me please if the heads of the first five most democratic states belong to a heridetary line of Kings and Queens never elected by the people how are these countries democratic really? That's simply absurd and ridiculous. In a democracy the head of state is directly elected by the majority of people. The Kings and Queens of these countries are not. Therefore the should be as undemocratic as other dictatorships with the difference that people are happy in monarchies but unhappy in most dictatorships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the other most democratic countries but if there is a majority in Sweden that do not want the monarch, he will be removed. That is democratic, right? Additionally, he has no political power and is not allowed to make any political comments. Therefore, calling the monarch a "dictator" is ignorant. He is a diplomat. 92.80.100.109 (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you... You have to understand that the people responsible for defining democracy and freedom are running out of ideas. They are turning democracy into an adjective devoid of any of its original meaning, and alienating their definition from common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it unacceptable that constitutional monarchies are more democratic than actual republics. The rulers have absolute power, appoint governments etc. The monarchist rules through a government so if something goes wrong he will blame the government rather than him while he lives a carefree luxurious environment. I heard claims that the Economist was very biased and unscientific which I usually dismissed. Now I know its true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.194.163 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The index doesn't make sense. In Germany and Austria, for instance, because of their complex recent history, it is forbidden to dispute the number of Holocaust victims: one can be jailed for that. One cannot demonstrate the swastika in public or say certain things. Such bans may be righteous, but they're hardly democratic. --Humanophage (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Score

It's quite obvious that the scoring is rather arbitrary as they are all subjective scores. I have citizenship in two listed countries both with fairly high scores but one is more than a full point higher than the other; however the scores should be reversed as the one listed as "more democratic" is vastly less so. And this score doesn't take into account checks and balances, a country with complete mob (as in mob of people not organized crime) rule should have a pretty high score.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.173.229 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Change the title

I commented previously and the purpose of my comment was to highlight how the title is inappropriate. Unless the economist holds a monopoly or a patent on democracy the title shouldn't read democracy index, but the economists democracy index.

the criterias are: "Whether national elections are free and fair"; "The security of voters"; "The influence of foreign powers on government"; "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies".

Now the last two are a bit controversial. If a government is pressured into submitting to the wills of foreign power does that make it more of an authoritarian regime and less of a democracy ? It probably makes it less democratic (to no fault of its own), but it certainly does not make it more authoritarian.

The index is rubbish, the title is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 06:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria and an objective source

I guess this is a rant at the thousands of times I hear the word democracy being thrown around daily, but democratic republicanism (statism) is not as democratic a society can be.

Secondly, The Economist newspaper itself takes a biased viewpoint upon the world from a "pro-free trade" lens. Why is an entire article based upon a single source as if it's absolute writ?--76.205.212.142 (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

France

Where is France on the list? It looks like on the map that it should be somewhere in the same range as the US but its not on the list at all. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done: France is at no. 24. Portugal was written twice. Typing error. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What is a hybrid regime? and what Venezuela is on it

I don't have or find a clear definition of a hybrid regime and the word "regime" does not sound very nice. I live in Venezuela and I think this country is a democracy:

• we have an AVERAGE of 3 elections through free, secret vote and universal suffrage PER YEAR.
• All governing officials are elected through popular vote.
• There are over 200 political parties.
• There is a MEDIA WAR where the private media have called the President an "homosexual insane monkey" and channels still remain uncensored.
  • If you talk about the closure of RCTV well it was NOT closed its license was not renewed (because the license belong to the government) and even though is no longer on air it continues to broadcast its subliminal messages through Cable and Satellite television.
• Newspaper are even more critical than Radio stations or Television networks and none of them have stopped circulating.
• Nobody is being sent to jail, persecuted or tortured for his/her political views as it happened before 1993.

I think you should review this. The only reason why we might not be fully democratic is because there is control over how much American dollars we can buy, sell or spend. Thanks.Tony0106 (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Error with Italy and Slovenia

It says Italy and Slovenia are listed as full democracies. However, the guidelines explain that:

Full democracies—scores of 8-10.

That means Italy and Slovenia should be flawed democracies as their scores are 7.98 and 7.96. Does this need to be changed? Globe-trotter (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree with u... they ar below 8.00 so shouldn't be full democracy. change is needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.39.246.178 (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is incorrect, the number or the label? --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

isn't the label wrong??? actually i don't really know... which is incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.216.124.133 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, there was a recent dispute over this (no one violated 3rr), but the result is that they are full democracies. Let me explain, you rightly state that full democracies have scores of 8-10. How ever, flawed democracies have scores of 6 to 7.9. So in the case of Italy and Slovenia their scores are 7.98 and 7.96, if you round that to one decimal place, the result is: 8.0 and 8.0, as 6 and 8 both round up to the nearest ten. Thank you Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

USA is not a democracy

The constitution of USA article 4 section 4 clause 1 states that USA is a republic.USA should not be added as it is not a democracy but a republic.Atleast add a note —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.104.235 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is the least democratic

This definition is from the Wikipedia: Democracy is a form of government in which power is held indirectly by citizens in a free electoral system.

Based on the above definition, the democracy index of Saudi Arabia should be equal to zero. The government there is totally formed of Al-Saud family members (House of Saud), so the army leaders, minsters, governments official, police leaders are from "House of Saud" and all other forms of authority are ruled by Saud family members...

In North Korea there is a Party ruling the country, not a family, so ministers there when they die they will be replaced (not democratically) by another people in the communist party... but in Saudi Arabia, they will be replaced by their brothers, cousins or sons... so there is no way for any citizen (except Saud family members and their relatives) to be a minster (or even a general) in Saudi Arabia, in North Korea there is a way (by being a communist your entire life, then you may be chosen......... or you may not, but there is a chance).

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world which officially forbid democracy, in North Korea there is no democracy, but the government there did not declare that democracy is evil (even that it believe it is) but the Saudi Arabian government officials [like the head of the religious police (Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice)] declares that democracy is evil and forbidden, also in the Saudi interpretation of their constitution democracy is against god's will and it is the devil way to destroy human society (actually Saudi Arabia have no constitution, it is just a 1400 years old holy book named "Quran" which is their constitution).

Saudi Arabian constitution = Quran = God is the ruler >>> King rules in his name >>> his relatives help him >>> people should obey.

The written paragraph above is all about the above democracy definition, if we extend the definition to include other democracy elements (like freedom of speech and thought), Saudi Arabia democracy index will not improve at all, its democracy index would be -2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.225.230 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A link to a Swedish blog in english with a critical review of the EIU rating for Sweden

Someone has removed the link to a Swedish blog with a critical review of the EIU rating of Sweden. This was apparently done without arguing why. The link has now been added again. If someone wants to remove it then please present your arguments before doing so. 79.136.76.102 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL and WP:NOT. Wikipedia does not allow links to blogs unless they are authoritative for their subject. Mindmatrix 15:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And it what way exactly does the blog in question not conform? You claim this but you do not argue it in any detail. In what way is it not "authoritative" for its subject? It is neutral since it does not express a particular point of view. It does not present new research, but contains a number of references to authoritative sources and relevant debate. It is of course also highly relevant to the subject. So, how does it not conform? 79.136.76.102 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was me who removed it, sorry it seems i wasn't logged on at the time. The article in the blog is a POV diatribe at best, and verging on liberal propaganda, visible from the multiple references to 'liberal think tanks' and the like. It is also obviously not written by a recognised authority. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your politico-ideological polemics. I, therefore, don't need to argue on its removal, you should have argued before its introduction. As Mindmatrix suggested you should read WP rules on external links before posting. (KLA (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

1. You give only one concrete argument in you reply, and that is the false claim about liberal think tanks. The articles contain a mixture of references, the majority of which are professors at Swedish universties, reports from government inquiries, and the like. Some of their research is also conducted by recognised scholars, and is treated and referenced as such by other scholars. When did recognised Swedish scholarship become propaganda? And when did it become propaganda to include many different points of view in a review?

2. You only mention one article, which suggests you have not read the six articles that comprise the critical review. Maybe reading the review in its entirety may be a good starting point?

I wonder if you perhaps have been contacted by a company that has an interest in that the link disappears? Maybe in exchange for a handfull of cash? Or maybe you are just a run of the mill leftist rabulist, who produces more insults than arguments, and the few arguments you produce are false?

I did check the rules, and I found content criteria. I did not see the term recognised authority, but I probably missed it. Maybe you can show me where it is, and how it is defined by Wikipedia?

79.136.76.102 (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now checked the rules again, and I found the term recognised authority, and I also found that there is no reason why the blog should not pass those criteria. What the rules say is that this restriction is very limited, and the only clarifying information given is a reference to notability. And we pass the criteria for notability.

So, what is left of the arguments from Klassikal? Well, nothing, except slurs and lies.

There is also a need to further discuss the issue of possible corruption:

- Why is this article only about The Economist, instead of one generic article about democracy indices, and one specific about the EIU index?

- How is it that detailed results from the EIU index are published by Wikipedia, when we have shown that they are not authoritative?

- Why was our link in place for at least two months, before it suddenly was deleted, just when our blog was starting to grow with more damning evidence against the EIU:s rating of Sweden?

- Why is it that the person who has removed the link resorts to politicised slurs, instead of facts, and seemingly biased interpretations of rules?

83.233.232.115 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Listen, i don't want to start a flame war or anything like that. I just want to play by the rules. You claim you article in not POV, i disagree. But that doesn't matter because linking the article is against other WP rules.

Firstly, you claim that your article "does not present new research, but contains a number of references to authoritative sources and relevant debate." The fact that your article has references does not exclude it from being "original research". Many articles could only be based on secondary sources and still be original research. If you had published your analysis in a journal or newspaper, then it could pass that criteria. Anyone could write an article about anything, it could be the best article in the world, with tons of references, but if its not published in a newspaper or journal or equivalent it would still be against WP rules. It would only be allowed from a blog if it is written by an recognised authority.

The "recognised authority" clause says:

"Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)."

Thus, if you feel that you, the writer, is so important that you deserve a Wikipedia page in your name, then sure, your article should be linked. Notice that i not saying that you don't present arguments by recognised authorities; i am rather saying that you are not not a recognised authority. If you can find a personal blog or whatever of a Swedish politician, or an article in a newspaper or any other recognised authority that criticises the Democracy Index you are welcome to link it. I mean no disrespect but you are not even registered in WP. As for the personal attacks i won't even bother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klassikal (talk • contribs) 07:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a joke

I concur with those above who have wondered aloud whether or not this index was a joke. I've concluded that it must be. As far as I'm aware, Bolivia is the most democratic state on the planet today: Morales was selected by the common people from among their own ranks -- which has never and will never happen in any corporate state -- and he was affirmed by 45% of the population in 2005 and 57% in 2008, which will likewise never happen in a corporate state. (That's percentage of the population, not just of voters, which is a distinction that the corporate states are loathe to have pointed out, since it would reveal the fact that only a third or less of the populations of those states actually approve of the corporate stooges that are trotted out for their approval every few years in order to maintain the illusion of legitimacy.) Yet, lo and behold, Bolivia is listed in the middle of the pack as a "flawed" democracy. Why? Because Morales is taking no shit from the US -- that's the "flaw." But, it won't be long before the corporate media has finished branding him a dictator so he can be toppled without undo bleating from the sheeple. This article should be deleted, since it is being linked from other articles as a legitimate reference for which states constitute democracies. An illegitimate propaganda index is thereby being legitimized. How is that encyclopedic?