Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Global Peace Index

Global Peace Index

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my work this time, just did a little tidying up. But I think the list is pretty well put together, pretty simple, and has a thorough lead. Happy to work on any issues reviewers spot. Geraldk 02:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ over serious NPOV concerns in the prose. Firstly, some suggestions:

The Methodology section is rather light on methodology (the first sentence) and focuses instead on the analysis provided by the compilers. I'd like to see more on the methods used to compile the index and details of the groups involved. I'd like to see a paragraph or so on the definition of "peace" used by the compilers. Have a separate section on the analysis of the results as given by the list's compilers. It would be best to cite pages on the website rather than one big PDF. Then have a section on analysis by third parties.

I've overhauled the methodology section, including the addition of a table of the indicators. Let me know if that's adequate. Geraldk 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, having one "Criticisms" section isn't the best way of writing a balanced article. Not all the comment in this section is a criticism—the stuff about Germany and WWII can't be regarded as a criticism of a metric that looks at whether a nation is now peaceful (only the last 5 years count).

I think it's good to have a criticisms section, since there have been criticisms, and to be truly encyclopedic those criticisms should be covered. The trouble with this one is that it's a little one-sided, and I've worked on that. As to the Germany reference, that sentence is a reference to an argument made by the Wall Street Journal. Personally, I agree with you that it's completely invalid, but I've removed it because it was not a significant argument of the source, not because it's fallacious. Geraldk 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear which source is used for the list itself. This should be a bullet-point reference, and I suggest you provide readers with a link to the official site and also indicate a PDF link to the Chicago Tribune reprint (which is suitable for printing but less good online).

I've added a reference note at the beginning of the index table. Let me know if that's adequate. Geraldk 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the citations. Use the cite templates if you want, but you should include date, publisher, author, title, access-date, etc.

In progress. Geraldk 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "The Israeli Peace Index" external link doesn't seem relevant here.

removed Geraldk 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now the POV problems.

The article has a US-centric world view. The position of the US in the ranking is justified and contrasted with other nations.

In methodology, I've kept the mention of the United States because I think it's a useful example of how the 'drivers' identified by the study don't always apply. It's not absolutely necessary, though, so if you think it needs to be pulled, I'll pull it. In criticisms, the US is mentioned frequently because many of the criticisms have centered around the low U.S. score. Hopefully, the rewording of the criticisms has helped this. Geraldk 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is effectively saying "The US is the great protector of the world, using its military might to maintain world peace." This is one POV.

I've tried to place in quotes or make clear as opinion of an outside source any such POV. Geraldk 01:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this is the idea that military power is necessary to maintain peace, and pacifist countries can only afford that luxury because other countries dirty themselves. The words "free-riding" and "freeloaders" are examples of this POV.

Placed in quotes. Geraldk 01:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The line "Israel... would like nothing more than to be at peace, but its surrounding neighbors...attack it" is POV and so controversial it probably only has a place on WP inside quote marks.

Placed in quotes. Geraldk 01:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prose could be improved wrt NPOV if it removed all the comment justifying why nation X has a low score. Note that justification is different from description. Have a look at this article for a much more neutral discussion that comments on several countries' positions in the list without trying to justify how they got there.

Again, I think discussion of the criticism is valuable to the reader, as long as the article carefully delineates who is making what argument. The article you cite is a good one, but doesn't cover any criticisms of the list - it just mentions why certain countries are ranked where they are. In this case, and in the case of most political controversies, I think it's important that Wikipedia cover the debate as well as the simple, stated facts. Geraldk 01:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to decide whether to go for completely neutral (non political, neither pro-war nor pacifist) prose or to have POVs discussed in a balanced way. The latter is very hard to achieve, and may distract from the purpose of the list: present the info and let the reader interpret it how they wish.

Agreed. But want the latter. More comments / suggestions would be great. Thanks for the excellent review. Geraldk 01:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin°^Talk 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look. The Methodology is much improved and expanded. I'm almost getting concerned about copyright issues, reproducing that much detail. The Criticism section is also better. I'm happy with paragraphs one, four and five. However, the middle two remain problematical. On WP, we are only required to reproduce the opinions of those who's views are shared by a decent number of people or the opinions of those who are notable in the field they are commenting on. We don't need to reproduce the opinions of any old hack who typed up an opinion-piece for his daily column or blog. The two newspaper columns/blogs cited are poor choices:

Peter Worthington's column completely misses the point. He confuses a index of peace with an index ranking how great a country is to live in. His view that freedom is an important consideration when ranking countries is fair but no more relevant to a peace index than any other metric such as access to food, shelter, employment, education or health care. By going off at a tangent, he has produced a column that is in fact irrelevant to the Global Peace Index.
James Taranto's blog is just a daily rant. His comments are juvenile (apparently the whole GPI is "a very silly exercise"), offensive (further up he rejoices in a suicide at Guantanamo Bay with the headline "Another One Bites the Dust") and political rather than analytical. This sort of commentary is designed just to get like-minded reader's heads nodding. It isn't serious journalism and certainly doesn't deserve to be cited by an encyclopaedia.
The third critic you cite, Riane Eisler, actually makes an on-topic criticism of a peace index. If you read her WP entry, you'll see that she is someone qualified to comment on this index in an intelligent fashion. Whether you agree with her or not, her opinions are much more likely to be worth citing. If you are prepared to drop the first two "critics" (and ideally find more of the quality of Eisler) then you've got my support.

Suggestion: is there any way to add colour to the table in a way that links it to the map? Colin°^Talk 17:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy, but would basically create large blocks of color, because the map has 1-1.69, then 1.7-2 etc. I really don't think it's a good idea. This is not the same as Law enforcement in British Columbia, 2005 or List of inhabitated islands of Croatia, where the primary organization is alphabetical rather than numeral. Circeus 01:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support Geraldk seems to have gone on wikiholiday. I've removed the two paragraphs that I had issues with. My support is conditional on those remaining out. Otherwise, this is a worthy featured list IMO. Colin°^Talk 10:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the methodology section and the rankings table looks good. I think as long as there is some criticism, the list is complete. --Crzy cheetah 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geraldk seems to have very well addressed the expressed concerns, and I can't find much anything wrong with the list. Circeus 01:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]