Talk:Globalization Index

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Globalization Index redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Globalization High‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization articles
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Moving the article[edit]

As you know there are another globalization index calculated by the Swiss think tank KOF. To be more balanced I am going to move this article to a new one with the following title Globalization Index (A.T. Kearney). So this page will provide both latest rankings of globalization according to A.T. Kearney and KOF. Bestofmed 12:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientific Spam"[edit]

Please be aware that one of the external links [1] as well as the newer information on the KOF index have been added by single purpose accounts 88.97.14.61, and 134.155.250.225 respectively. The latter of these can be tracked back to an institution where one of the authors of the now prominently featured KOF index used to work. Similar issues occured in various related articles, e.g., Human trafficking, cf. User_talk:129.132.65.139, User_talk:134.76.2.80, User_talk:134.76.2.75, User talk:134.76.172.114, User_talk:SDC#Please_do_not_spam, User talk:Charmandander, User talk:Savelloc. I don't think this helps accuracy or neutrality. It should not be authors of scientific work themselves who decide which information is relevant here. Or are there any convincing reasons why the CSGR Globalisation Index or the GlobalIndex are only linked but not shown here? Knopffabrik (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues and concerns[edit]

As currently constituted, there are multiple issues and concerns with this article. For one thing, the title and content are incongruent: the article currently includes three globalization indices. For another, as a List of globalization-related indices, the article is incomplete; see Category:Globalization-related indices. Thirdly, see the note above. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea[edit]

Globalization is almost non existent north of the DMZ.As such if Foreign Policy did not covered the country it might be due to poor assessment of the country and perhaps{pardon me but its north korea} lack of understanding and intelligence of its relation with PRC and Russia.I think if there are no sources this fallacy should be acknowledged in the main page.{sorry about Before im new here}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.148.174 (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated[edit]

The A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Globalization Index was published at least through 2007. See:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2007/10/11/the_globalization_index_2007

The KOF Index of Globalization is now available through 2013. See:

http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/

Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following was added to the body of the article at 13:11, 4 January 2014‎ by IP 89.128.236.143. I'm moving it here and deleting it from the body of the article:

2013

The report from the year 2013: http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/media/filer_public/2013/03/25/rankings_2013.pdf (please create a table)

--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014[edit]

Another update is necessary: http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.80.5 (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?[edit]

As far as I can see from a quick look at the criteria for compilation, these lists are compiled by applying various proprietary weightings to statistical data. That seems to take them into the realm of WP:TOP100. There's detailed discussion at Copyright in lists. I believe the lists should be removed; that wouldn't leave much in the way of an article, I'm afraid. Thoughts, anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And what do theses numbers tell us anyway with so little explanation? I think the article should be deleted. Pulveslaat (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed the listings, for the reasons given above. I'm afraid that the text will need to be rewritten as a result – if the article is to be kept, that is. My apologies for that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "globalization index" is not a thing[edit]

Scholarly research never uses such a metric. I propose fully replacing this article for the concept of openness to trade like the rest of serious research. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/sti_scoreboard-2011-en/06/06/index.html?itemId=/content/chapter/sti_scoreboard-2011-60-en Dryfee (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this, Dryfee? I'm thinking of redirecting this page to there. Would that make sense to you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me Dryfee (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]