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)

Just to clarify what a COI means here on wikipedia, it means editing a page which you have an interest in. If you work for the organization, then you most likely have a COI in editing its page. I also want to point out that the statements you are making here are actually backing up the fact that there is a COI. The way you describe the index in this comment is very positive, and yet you're not backing these comments up by independent sources. And I would say that "fact-driven" is a weasel word--anyone releasing any sort of publishable material would like it to be considered by others to be "fact-driven". "Renowned" is also a weasel word. Perhaps read the page on WP:Weasel Words as a starting point! Good luck; I know wikipedia policies and guidelines can seem a bit frustrating to newcomers...it seems like everyone is jumping on you...but in reality we're just trying to impart some academic rigour to create a quality encyclopedia. Cazort (talk) 11:10, 9 July 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)

Either find a reliable source that says that the institute is made up of members of W's administration, or find sources linking each of the individual people to it. Ryan Streeter is clearly linked to George W. Bush both on Legatum's site and other ones, but with the other three people they list, it is hardly apparent. I personally would like to see this material kept on the page, but it needs references and I think it's too potentially controversial (due to the fact that W's administration is inherently controversial and carries a stigma) to have the statement unsourced. Cazort (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel this is necessary, then EDIT IT YOURSELF AND PROVIDE THE REFERENCES. DELETING IT IS NOT EDITING IT. Revert it again and then so will I. That will be three times and your shit out of luck then. I'm so tire of you Wiki assholes demanding things of others. THEIR OWN WEBPAGE IDENTIFIES THEM. THEY ARE ALL BUSH ADMIN HACKS. Case closed.

I just added more material and an additional reference to the personnel section, after re-removing the sentence. Just because someone was employed in the executive branch of the government does not mean it is acceptable to describe them as a "former members of the George W. Bush administration"; they could be career bureacrats, leftover from earlier administrations, or they could have just been people who got routine jobs in the government. Given the strong negative stigma association with George W. Bush's administration, making a statement about a living person that ties them to that administration borders on libel. For example, Jean Geran is listed here as a senior fellow at the institute, and this google news archive search verifies that she was working for the state department during George W. Bush's administration...but adding "bush" to the search turns up 0 hits. Because this is a sensitive issue, potentially involving libel, I think it is important to be specific; instead of saying "most of the leadership are former members of the bush administration", name specific people and their specific involvements--which is what is done under the "personnel and leadership" heading. By being specific, we expose any potential bias in the leadership more thoroughly anyway so it's a win-win situation. Cazort (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

First it was "I personally would like to see this information remain...yadda yadda yadda". Now your inane excuse for pulling your little wiki powerplay and deleting it again after being told in no uncertain terms why you are wrong to call it controversial, and WHY DELETION IS NOT EDITING, you repeat this behaviour. Now you are using the term libel? Are you serious? I AM WRITING THIS IN ALLCAPS. THIS IS SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, THAT YOU ARE 100% ABSOLUTELY WRONG! You CLEARLY have no clue what libel is, nor do you understand that for libel to actually be proven in a court of law you need to prove damages. Nor do you seem to understand that the first and foremost requirement is for the statement to be untrue, which it isn't, which I've told you several times now. You can choose to believe it is untrue if you like. Unfortunately, even people like you are given free will on this planet. That does not entitle you to act like your baseless opinion is fact. This "index" of their's exists solely for the agenda of Legatum. Their "institute" is nothing but a front. The offices are Legatum Capital's. The phones, servers, EVERYTHING is part of Legatum Capital. They include "faith" in their "index" and reference "faith" REPEATEDLY in their own statements about their index, the rankings, and country comparisons. By your own criteria, insisting that facts, outlined in their own biographical information, supplied by them, on their website, can rise to the level of potentially libelous and controversial material unsuited to a wiki article, I hereby declare what should be obvious. That an institute, that exists in name only, as a purveyor of the agenda of a private hedge fund, purportedly staffed by former "CONTROVERSIAL" Bush-ites, using FAITH as a component of a liveability and prosperity index is HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL. I've replaced the entire article with the ONLY statements of fact that can so far be derived from the available information on the web. You are welcome to contact Legatum, assuming you aren't one of the three Bushies yourself, and ask them to provide you with proof that this deserves to be a wiki article. I INSIST you apply your own standards to anything you return to this article. Not my reasonable, fact based standard, but your particularly unreasonable, self-important, lunatic standard. Got that? You DO NOT get to have your cake and eat it to. Either you were wrong, and TOTALLY over the line to behave as you did, or what I just did is perfectly acceptable and will be accepted immediately by you. Which is it?

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.4.118 (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're concerned about the issues you raised, it's important to keep a page on the topic and clearly outline the potential biases and conflicts of interest you describe. If the page is deleted, people will type it into google and find their own website--this way at least they'll be redirected to a more impartial page. The current page, although I think it was originally created by someone associated with the institute, already contains a number of references which describe the funding of the "institute"...which as you point out, makes them look bad. No need to say anything more in the article though, just state the facts with references, and let them speak for themselves. Cazort (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)