Talk:Legatum Prosperity Index

I added the WP:COI template because the creator and main contributor of the article (11K out of 12K) is a user named User:Legatumltd. --Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As previously noted elsewhere, we have acknowledged our association with the subject of this article. Again, we refute the suggestion of COI based on the fact that the Prosperity Index is a publicly available, fact-driven, bona fide research study that has been commented upon by numerous reputable media and therefore sits firmly in the public domain; the research was conducted by Oxford Analytica, a renowned research practitioner, and the findings were peer-reviewed by leading academics specialising in this field (noted in the article). Further, the reference to weasel words is unspecific: a more detailed explanation would be helpful. Legatumltd (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I found only a single reference to the Legatum Prosperity Index in the scholarly literature: [1], and this reference is from a working paper that has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. I see it has been referenced a number of times in news sources, however, and I see that many of the members of its advisory panel are notable and well-respected. On this grounds I would say that the index is notable. However...I do think the current page is extremely problematic: most of the material on this page cannot be verified in independent third-party sources--it comes right off the organization's website itself and isn't discussed or verified anywhere. Cazort (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few more sources if anyone wants to get started with the cleanup: [2]. I would recommend gutting the page almost entirely. I'm not sure whether this page should exist or not...there are few references, but maybe enough to piece together an article that doesn't rely on the organization's homepage? Cazort (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ties to Bush administration

I just removed the unsourced statement about ties to the Bush administration. However, upon doing a preliminary search I did find some evidence of these ties. I restructured the article to contain a section about the institute itself with a subsection about personnel, and I added one sentence describing one connection to the Bush administration. Because this is potentially controversial material, we need to be highly specific and document this information with reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I replaced it. The link DIRECTLY to their website bios is right there. The only controversial aspect is that even a chimp will instantly recognize the complete and utter lack of credibility of any "think-tank" associated with players from the previous administration. Too bad for them. It is an important piece of information. This "institute" is nothing but a mail-box and a bunch of neo-cons. They make their own wiki page with all kinds of claims and suddenly the US which regularly ranks around 20th in the world REGARDLESS of what methodology is being used to measure prosperity/development etc. is suddenly sixth. Nope, nobody with their finger on the scale here. A country that cannot even provide health-care to more than 40 million of its citizens doesn't rank above those that do no matter what other criteria are used unless someone is tipping the scale. The dominance of American markets (until now) ensured they would not drop too far, but to see them ranked 3rd in 2007, 6th a year later with BLATANT references to faith in their justifications for a high US rank is just beyond transparent. None of this is mentioned in the article and should be, assuming it is even allowed to remain. If it does remain, it should be nothing more than an expose. These guys might as well be selling miracle cures from the back of a truck, they'd have as much credibility. Can't WAIT to see 2009's rankings. I'll bet the US plummets, not because of the markets, but because Obama's "socialism" indicates the beginning of the "rapture". Regardless, the original comment, outing them in a completely unbiased and neutral manner REFERENCED WITH THEIR LITERATURE is completely appropriate. The only people with a problem will be those with a specific agenda, which is wiki inappropriate anyway. The first and foremost thing anyone needs to know on any topic is who is presenting it and are they credible. I'm just astounded that this isn't obvious, and that referencing their own biographical literature was considered somehow insufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.4.118 (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries 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) 06:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

GARBAGE it. Until it is proven there is a building, or at least a significant chunk of an entire floor of a building, this is not an "institute", it is a mail-box, and a bunch of propagandists. They have taken a page STRAIGHT out of the anti-abortion playbook. That should tell you where they are coming from and how credible they are. Not to mention they are funded by what appears to be a hedge-fund. NGO's with peer reviewed funding provide unbiased peer-reviewed reports. These guys dont't even get near that universe. They are privately funded, and not peer-reviewed. Assuming there is any funding at all and they don't slap these reports together in two days on their computer once a year.