Talk:The Economist Democracy Index/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Where is “Seychelles“ standing ?

Where is “Seychelles” standing 2603:6000:D800:5344:6DA5:B2BA:545B:2237 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

They are not included in the source. It omits many small countries. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia for fairness to humanity has to include the “Seychelles” in the index of democracy. It is a big shortcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:D800:5344:6DA5:B2BA:545B:2237 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the EIU's list, not Wikipedia's. If you don't like the list, send your complaints to the EIU. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And the list gives the EIU score. There is no score we could give for the Seychelles and dozens of other small countries. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Mexico

Mexico is in the wrong place in this list. Mexico is part of North America. Please put Mexico in the space of Canada and the United States of America 69.158.246.254 (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Democracy Index#By country says: "The following table shows each nation's score over the years. The regions are assigned by the Economist Intelligence Unit, and may differ from conventional classifications (for example, Turkey is grouped in Western Europe)."

Mexico is listed in Latin America and the Caribbean. We also show the region averages in the report by the Economist Intelligence Unit so we cannot reassign countries to other regions. Wikipedia reports what our sources say. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Regions

Why are the regions necessary here? They are totally arbitrary and rather seem to be based on the Cold War division within Europe... 213.184.49.21 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The article deals with the Democracy Index as published by The Economist. That report divides the country in regions, so the article reflects this division.--Gorpik (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

2021?

So, has The Economist already published the report from last year? Gunther878787 (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Not so far. I don't think they have publicly committed to do it yearly or for 2021. If they don't say anything within two weeks then I guess it isn't coming. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The Democracy Index 2021 just dropped! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Democracy index averages weighted by populations?

Right now all the tables (with the exception of the world population (%) for 2021) give each country the same weight which isn't very useful as a metric for how democratic the world actually is each year (ex. North America has 2 countries while North Africa/Middle east has 20 when the former has a population of about 400 mil and the latter has one of 500). Nor is it a very good metric for each region (North America is basically carried by Canada, otherwise the Europe would score slightly higher or would it? It's hard to say because Europe also has many low populated Nordic countries that also preform very well on these indexes.)

I doubt anyone has the time to weight all these stats by population any time soon, but assuming that someone does have that kind of time, it might look a bit silly to show two versions of each table: one weighted and one not. However could it be useful to have a little side button that toggles which version of the tables like this button I found on this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Japanese_general_election#Candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:8860:217B:D915:7ACD:9C9D (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is about the Democracy Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit. They don't have a weighted average as far as I know. I think it would violate Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material if we try to compute one. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I would think that a weighted average would fall under routine calculations as it's just basic arithmetic. I guess it's a little more complicated as you also need to gather the population numbers from another source (unless the EIU also states population numbers for the 2021 democracy index). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:8860:B1B2:B867:5412:2885 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see how weighting by population is useful, other than for showing the combined weighted average which could be interesting I guess. In any case this article is not about how democratic the world is, but about the Democracy Index. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Democracy by country

Why can't the democracy index be ordered by country? There does not seem to be a way to reset the order to make it first to last. Why? It's doable on other indexes on Wikipedia. 24.235.95.113 (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If you click "Desktop" at the bottom of the page in the mobile version then you get the desktop version where all the tables are sortable by clicking a column heading. Our mobile version doesn't currently support sortable tables. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

About the title and the introduction

I want to start an evaluation about the introduction of the index. Because of the criticism that is already mentioned in the article, mainly because of the transparency issues, I think it should be evaluated whether the introduction can be made in a better way. I think it would be more appropriate to rename the title to something that includes the name of the company that made the index. Maybe "Democracy Index of the Economist Intelligence Unit" Currently the impression can mislead ,and someone could think that there is only one democracy index, and it can mislead to a kind of "offical" impression. In case the "Economist Intelligence Unit" will publish the index with lower quality as usual, what would take some time to be revealed, it would fall back to wikipedia. Then some folks would say, "oh the democracy index was wrong, i do not believe in wikipedia anymore, i belive my conspiracy theorists" Because of this maybe it's better to state all the things at the beginning. That the source is from this company can be put in the title. A reference to to criticism should be in the introduction. Because it is bad that you can not reproduce the findings by tracking their decisions made. For this to be possible a decision making report of some kind would be required. Like what did each of the experts stated and maybe how did the expert justified the findings. The positive things can also be mentioned. Like how was the history of the quality of the reports. And how was/is the acceptance in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex fdhsjrtfg82 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's the only subject called "Democracy Index" in Wikipedia and even if we had others, this one would be the primary topic. As far as I can tell from Googling, nobody else makes a notable index which is just called "Democracy Index". Article names show what subjects are called. They are not made longer to add context unless it's necessary to distinguish from other Wikipedia articles and it isn't the primary topic for the name. I'm not sure critiscism of the Democracy Index is common enough to mention in the lead without giving undue weight, and the criticism section is only a few lines. Nearly everybody and everything has critics. It doesn't always belong in the lead. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I get the point. If there is only this one, so why blow up the title because of criticism that is not common. If there would be criticism common enough, then it can be mentioned more at the top. So it reflects the reality. What is good. It makes sense. It is what it is, so it should be on Wikipedia the way it is.

Everything else would be an attempt to influence things and that would be the wrong place. Sorry, maybe I was a bit overhasty and thanks for the talk. Alex fdhsjrtfg82 (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Alex fdhsjrtfg82: Thanks for understanding. Most complainers at Wikipedia get argumentative and insist that an article should reflect what they personally think is true or fair. That wouldn't work well when we have thousands of editors who can edit the same articles. We try to reflect what reliable sources say about a subject with the weight they give. My own biggest beef with the Democracy Index isn't even about scores or transparency but some of the regional groupings. Turkey in Western Europe? Really? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

North America should be Northern America

This article uses the term "North America" but links to the Northern America article, which is very different. The former is a region of 22 countries while the later is only two, US & Canada, according to the North America article.

Should we update the link to point to the North America article and update the country lists appropriately? Or should we replace the usages of "North America" with "Northern America"? Niaxilin (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Niaxilin: The article is about the Democracy Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). "North America" is the term used in the official EIU report. We pipe the link to Northern America which is the name of our own corresponding article. I think we should continue that. We should definitely not change which countries are included in which regions. The regions are defined by the EIU who uses them to compute region averages we report. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: OK, that makes sense to use the same terminology as the EIU does. Probably confused me because I'm not familiar with EIU language. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niaxilin (talk • contribs)

By the way, the biggest issue to me is that they place Turkey in Western Europe. I once noted it in Democracy Index#By country so readers can see it wasn't done by Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Error in need number of full democracies in Latin America

It says 3 full democracies but Chile dipped under the threshold after 2020 so the 2021 number is 2. 189.174.198.34 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Usa a flawed democracy

Usa is an authoritarian police state, and the electoral collage is an extremely undemocratic system created by slave owners, i think it is at most an hybrid regime, and if we are honest an authoritarian state. Beannshie is taken (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Beannshie is taken: The article is about the Democracy Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit as the opening sentence says. It's not about our opinions. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the associated article. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not an opinion its a fact for example some us presidets won eaven tho they didt have a majority and democracy is the rule of the majorty. Beannshie is taken (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You should write to the Economist Intelligence Unit, I am sure they will be happy to change their ranking system based on your opinion. Once they revise the ranking, we will be happy to amend the article. Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sanyal's criticism

@Editorkamran his role as an economist is not questioned by anybody. You should refrain from editing without citing any source. Mixmon (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The claim that Sanyal's criticism is motivated by Hindutva is at best your own research WP:NOR not backed by any credible source. Mixmon (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The disputed paragraph is as follows:

• Indian Economist Sanjeev Sanyal has also criticised the Democracy Index for being primarily based on the opinions of a tiny group of unknown "experts" and alleged that there were serious problems with the methodology of the index. He also noted that Economist Intelligence Unit is supposed to use an additional ground survey, but found that the one for India has not been done in a decade.

Editorkamran has a good point that Sanyal is not a disinterested economist. Sanyal and his colleagues at EAC-PM work as directed by the Prime Minister of India. That needs to be brought out. Nevertheless, Sanyal and his fellow author Akanksha Arora made some interesting technical points that would enrich the Wikipedia article on the Economist Group's Democracy Index. It would also help if the citation templates were completed better.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes maybe we can add something but the statement "Sanyal and his colleagues at EAC-PM work as directed by the Prime Minister of India" is not backed by sources. It is an independent body - https://eacpm.gov.in/about-us/. Opposition leaders of India have used EAC reports to criticize the ruling government, for example this-[1] Mixmon (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The original report also contains a disclaimer -

"The contents of the paper including facts and opinions expressed are sole responsibility of the authors. EAC-PM or Govt of India does not endorse the accuracy of the facts, figures or opinions expressed therein." Mixmon (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Editorkamran Why you are you engaging in an edit war? Please discuss the issue in talk page. Mixmon (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The disclaimer. The disclaimer is a standard form of words similar to that used in many countries by people who do work for the government.

As directed The Terms of Reference of EAC-PM include analyzing any issue, economic or otherwise, referred to it by the Prime Minister... They also include attending to any other task as may be desired by the Prime Minister from time to time.^[2] i.e. their work is as directed by the Prime Minister.

Edit war allegation @Mixmon: Please improve the paragraph in a private sandbox before reposting it on the article page. Editorkamran and I have some valid points that you should address. Please indicate differences between versions of the paragraph in edit summaries.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Mixmon: No, it's literally titled after a government body and hosted on Government of India's domain. You need to provide independent, reliable sources that review and discourse on the work of government bodies in the context of the topic being dealt with for it to warrant a discussion on its inclusion. It would be preposterous to take reports commissioned by government agencies at face value and lend undue prominence to it when the same is not in evidence in reliable sources. Read WP:IRS to even know what constitutes as "reliable source". Editorkamran (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

References

disambiguation

Democracy Index (EIU) is not the only democracy index, see List of democracy indices. Will add diambiguation page. HudecEmil (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Life Orientation

State of Democracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.194.215 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Somalia is missing

Why is it not included? Habanero-tan (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Habanero-tan: As the lead says, the Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit. They don't say why Somalia is excluded. They say microstates are excluded but Somalia is not a microstate. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Error in "By Country"

Turkey should be on the Central & Eastern Europe section, not on Western Europe. 64.237.238.199 (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I think I've done that now BushelCandle (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You only changed it in one of two tables but I have reverted you. The article says "The regions are assigned by the Economist Intelligence Unit". The country counts and region averages are from the EIU report and would be wrong if we chose our own groupings. It is an odd choice to place Turkey in Western Europe and I once mentioned it in a note.[3] It was removed in [4]. I think it should be restored. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, PrimeHunter, and I apologise for not checking the bizarre geographical categorization of Turkey as belonging to Western Europe by the Economist Intelligence Unit (I still haven't checked, but I take your word for it).

I could possibly understand this weird assignment if the index was founded before the fall of the Iron Curtain but in 2006 this must have been a really weird geographical choice!

Should we mention this choice in the body text and delete the internal link to "Western Europe"?

At the very minimum, I think your note should be restored.BushelCandle (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I would personally have placed Turkey in Asia. The 2020 report makes it sound even weirder with this quote: "However, the civil liberties score for Turkey, at just 2.35, remains the lowest in Western Europe by a significant margin and the country is the only “hybrid regime” in the region."

I think we should keep the internal links on common geographic terms. Other countries could also be debated, e.g. placing Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan (Central Asia) in Eastern Europe. I had those in mind with my note "The region is defined by the official EIU report, for example grouping Turkey in Western Europe and all post-Soviet states in Eastern Europe." The report says "Eastern Europe" like my edit. Somebody changed it to "Central and Eastern Europe". I think we should use the EIU term. If we don't find sources commenting on the assigned regions then we shouldn't criticize it but a brief mention of the odder assignments could be in the body where it's more visible than a note. Then readers may get a better understanding of the averages, and maybe don't blame Wikipedia like the IP if they notice the country grouping in the tables. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. BushelCandle (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

It's surely copyvio to take the economist's whole list and replicate it here, is it not? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Is The Economist's Democracy Index a notable topic?

I have had the misfortune to have participated in a number of article deletion discussions recently. A common thread is that people look at an article in its present state, and assert that it does not show notability, and should therefore be deleted. I do not think that is what people should be doing, but it's normal.

This article is about a piece of work done by The Economist (a British weekly-newspaper). There are 14 citations: 6 from independent sources, 8 from The Economist. This is rather like the article on an Indian company where most of the citations are to the company website.

By the standards of what goes on at AFD, this article should be deleted. I did a search on Google News that suggests that the topic of democracy indices is notable, for example:

• Bush, Sarah (7 November 2017). "Should we trust democracy ratings? New research finds hidden biases". Washington Post.

I am sure that most of the items found would be described at AFD as "passing mentions" of this particular index. If we want this article to stick, we ought to be expanding it using independent coverage. When I say "independent", I mean independent of The Economist. Coverage by an economist who works for the Prime Minister of India is independent of The Economist and should be included.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

?? Campbell, David F. J. (2012-04-02). "The basic concept for the democracy ranking of the quality of democracy". SSOAR. Moxy- 15:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

That would be another useful source for improving the article, and help to demonstrate the notability of the topic.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This ORF article might also be useful. 202.168.86.100 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That is an interesting article by Bibek Debroy, the Chairman of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to The Economist Democracy Index. General consensus that the full name of the organisation be used. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Democracy Index → EIU Democracy Index or The Economist Democracy Index– As mentioned in the latest discussion of this page, index by EIU is not extraordinarily noticeable. Therefore, the organisation which publishes this index should be mentioned in the name. Unigen9 (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Including the name of the organization to distinguish from similar sounding indices makes sense. But EIU isn't a widely known abbreviation in this context. For that reason, I don't support renaming to "EIU Democracy index", but could support other article titles, like "The Economist Democracy Index" HudecEmil (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "The Economist Democracy Index" is better. Unigen9 (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Both proposed names are fine for me and, in my opinion, better than the current one. Gorpik (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Support The Economist Democracy Index. Oppose EIU Democracy Index. HudecEmil (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support The Economist Democracy Index. Oppose EIU Democracy Index. "The Economist" has meaning for lots of people; "EIU" does not. I accept the case of being more specific about whose "Democracy Index" it is. The terms "EIU Democracy Index" and "Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index" are sometimes used,^{EAC-PM Working Paper Series EAC-PM/WP/06/2022} and it would make sense to have redirects from them. Note that when "EIU Democracy Index" is used, papers can be expected spell EIU out first time (as in the example).-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support: And redirect the current page title to Democracy indices, where are range are linked to. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:OVERPRECISION. This article gets over 4,000 hits per day.[5] It is a very well-known topic, and its name is "Democracy Index". There is no other article on WP that uses the title, and if there were, this would be the overwhelming WP:primary topic. There is already a hatnote on the article, so the only thing a move would accomplish is to send many readers per day to an article they don't want or expect. Station1 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Station1 the page Democracy indices (broad-concept article) sounds very similar to Democracy Index. By WP:primary topic the broad-concept article can be primary page. I see two solutions: disambiguation page or renaming to Democracy Index (The Economist). HudecEmil (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  The two article titles are not that similar and not interchangeable. Democracy Index means this article's topic and it's what everyone is looking for. It averages 4,697 views per day compared to 17 for the other article.[6] There's simply no problem here that needs any kind of solution. Station1 (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Support to The Economist Democracy Index. The above link count shows the problem clearly....that is are people actually looking for the "The Economist Democracy Index" by name or looking for democracy indices in general?Moxy- 16:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No it is not appropriate to change the redirect left by the move to the page: Democracy indices.-- Toddy1 (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy: There is nothing in the above move discussion that justifies changing the redirect from Democracy Index to the new page Democracy indices.-- Toddy1 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the above. Bot set to fix in 5 hours...... will pause bot till you figure it out.Moxy- 02:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I see bot started....stopped. Moxy- 02:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I read the comments by Station1 - especially the numbers. The reason for the move discussion was NOT to promote readership of the article that was receiving 17 page views per day - or at least if it was that was not made clear.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Its wonderfull you discovred this topic a few months ago and we wouild love any help. But the reason HudecEmil created the article is because there are many democracy indices. It's not about views it's about directing readers to information...this is what content editors do.

• Geissel, Brigitte; Kneuer, Marianne; Lauth, Hans-Joachim (2016). "Measuring the quality of democracy: Introduction". International Political Science Review. 37 (5). Sage Publications: 571–579. doi:10.1177/0192512116669141. ISSN 0192-5121. JSTOR 26556872. S2CID 151808737.
• Greenwood, Shannon (2022-12-06). "Appendix A: Classifying democracies". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
• "The 'Varieties of Democracy' data: how do researchers measure democracy?". Our World in Data. 2022-11-30. Retrieved 2023-04-03.

Moxy- 12:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think looking down on other people will help you in this discussion, but up to you. Gorpik (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree...but its simply frustrating when editors are not aware of a topic or reading the sources [7]. Moxy- 12:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Maldive

Where is the country of Maldives in this ranking? Could someone include it. Thanks. 2603:6000:D800:5344:B4EC:21E3:49FC:9BB3 (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The Democracy Index includes only 165 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. The introduction to the report states that microstates are excluded. Of course, there is not a universally accepted definition of microstate; The Economist use their own. Gorpik (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Kazachstan,Uzbekistan, Kyrgistan, Tadjikistan and Turkmenistan in Central and Eastern Europe?

Non of these countries are in Europe and therefore cannot be included in Central and Eastern Europe. 62.24.69.128 (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

As the article says: The regions are assigned by the Economist Intelligence Unit, and may differ from conventional classifications (for example, Turkey is grouped in Western Europe). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is part of the United States

The map shows no data for Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States and not an independent country. People born in Puerto Rico are natural born citizens of the United States. 2603:7000:8400:1870:91CD:9F80:8039:4747 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Puerto Rico does not have voting representation in US Congress and cannot vote in US presidential elections, which affects democratic representation. For this reason Puerto Rico would have a distinct democracy index, but The Economist Democracy Index didn't provide a separate index for Puerto Rico. HudecEmil (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter. This article reflects what the Economist Democracy Index says, whether you agree with it or not. If you disagree with them, that's OK, but this is not the place to discuss it. Gorpik (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

article protection setting change

The article should have different protection settings.: [Edit=Require administrator access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite) 2A00:6020:A123:8B00:F8E3:D9C1:DCF0:5DB6 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What for? INFIYNJTE (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong colour

In the tables, the colour should depend on the number. It does not make sense having 5.0 sometimes using "#fad45d" and sometimes "#f9f8bb".-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I tried to fix all the colors for previous years (scores that were exactly on .00 values), but it said someone else was editing and overwrote it. I'm not sure what happened. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

But I see that if it is the color of #f9f8bb, it will distort the information of the EIU. อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

But I think that if I use #fad45d It's like disinformation, and in Paraguay some people are confused as to why the information comes directly from the EIU. belongs to the Flawed democracy democracy But Wikipedia puts it in the Hybrid regime . อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

For some reason, EIU decided to change their classification range from x.01-y.00 to x.00-x.99 INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no objection to painting with the color "x.01" after 2023 is "x.00".

However, for the years before 2022, the same as announced in previous reports should be followed.

Even if the EIU changes the classification from this year, the EIU's past reports themselves will not change.

And until this discussion is over, any color before 2022 will need to be a color announced before 2022.

Until the discussion is over, no changes should be made to information prior to 2022. Minchuchui (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The EIU changed the scale, and to maintain consistency and prevent potential confusion, I'd advocate for making that color change apply to all previous years. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

While it is good to have uniform color coding for all years, it also runs the risk that people who have seen reports for past years will be confused by the information on wikipedia. On the other hand, inserting a note in the article stating that it was changed after 2023 seems to me to solve them. Minchuchui (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Why aren't two separate tables with the old and new ranking systems created, one for X.00-X.99 and one for X.01-Y.00? That way, data in the past and data in the present can be accurate, and it'll also help split the tables so 15+ years aren't in one table. DarkMatterRealm2 (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This is how it should be.

Doing otherwise is tantamount to violating WP:NOR.

The reports before 2023 (2024) by EIU clearly showed x.01, but for some reason EIU made a change in its classifications in this report. INFIYNJTE (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like there is more support for changing the past colors. I don't see why changing past colors would be considered "misrepresenting the statements of the EIU", because the thresholds were likely changed for a reason. It could be argued that leaving past colors as-is would be tantamount to violating WP:COMMONNAME. Articles are intended to be named in ways that minimize the risk of confusion. The same logic could be applied to changing past colors here to prevent confusion from those who don't read through all the notes. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It is inaccurate as that is not how it was depicted by EIU in the prior years. INFIYNJTE (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the colour is an integral part of the index. The report is a series of numbers and then some techniques to present them in a way that is easier to understand, such as using colours. Changing the numbers because the their criteria has changed, for instance, would be wrong; but using colours in a consistent way is fine, in my opinion, so we should use always the old scheme or the new one. Out of those choices, using the new scheme is clearly the best, because it just need adjusting once (now). Gorpik (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

sometimes colors do play an important role. South Korea was once classified as a flawed democracy when it had a score of 8.00. It was not classified as a full democracy, so coloring it that way would imply it was. INFIYNJTE (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The definition has changed, and the classification labeled on the page only considers the most recent year. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

we could just add footnotes INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I added the footnotes and kept the old colors up until 2021. EIU changed its color and classification scheme to .00 intervals in 2022. INFIYNJTE (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=34079 (2017 Democracy Index; South Korea is classified as Flawed Democracy 8.00)

https://www.protothema.gr/files/2024-02-15/Democracy-Index-2023-Final-report.pdf (2023 Democracy Index; Paraguay is classified as Flawed Democracy 6.00)

However, the methodology seems to have changed as early as 2021, with Oman being classified in the 3.00-3.99 range in the map. INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Too many years

There are currently 15 (!) years represented on the first two tables, including for every single country. That's about 3,000 data points. Theoretically, a table on wikipedia should be just as readable as regular prose.

The tables currently can't even be searched without planning ahead: go to the top for what year you want to read and then go to the bottom to scroll to the right as much as you need, and then scroll up to find the country you want... after remembering to sort correctly so you can find it...

Perhaps just a few (two or three) landmark years could be kept. Or maybe the historical tables could go altogether, as the "Components" section does everything much more elegantly. Wizmut (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess nobody wanted to remove data when adding new years. I agree that fifteen years is far too much, but we might want to keep the last ten because that gives a good view on the recent evolution of each country. Gorpik (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If there's really any interesting trends to be found, they should be plucked out and written down as prose.

Ten years still leaves a lot of mystery as to why each number on the page. Wikipedia is not a database, so it's up to editors to find the interesting data points and spell them out.

A table of (current year), (current year - 5) and (current year - 10) would probably catch most of the trends. Wizmut (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking a similar approach to how older scores were handled on the Corruption Perceptions Index page when the 2022 scores were added. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree; I think it's a good idea to make separate tables for every half-decade or full decade. DarkMatterRealm2 (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say 2006–2015 should go in one row, 2016–2025 (for now, 2016–2023) should go in the next row, and so on. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Kosovo

The map shows Kosovo as a hybrid regime (yellow), yet the Economist Intelligence Unit does not rank Kosovo at all. Peetel (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It never did after looking at revision history 48JcL48 (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This was fixed in file history. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Economist_Intelligence_Unit_Democracy_Index_2023.svg Peetel (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh i see it 48JcL48 (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2024

In the last table of the page: "Components Year 2023", column "Changes in score" in the line for the country "Chile" the quantity seems right (0.24) but the arrow UP seems wrong, because according to the previous table Chile's score went DOWN from 8.22 (in 2022) to 7.98 (in 2023) 2804:14C:60:9811:B68D:B8B5:4F72:C88F (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Good catch, I doubled checked the citation and the score indeed fell from 8.22 to 7.98. The arrow now shows that the score decreased, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Mexico is North America tmk

I've always learnt that Mexico is North America, but in this article it's listed as Latin America. 62.45.42.33 (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This article follows the criteria of the Economist Democracy Index. You may disagree with it, but it is not for the article to challenge it. Gorpik (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)