Talk:The Economist Democracy Index

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Too many years[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wrong colour[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fixed it. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
we could just add footnotes INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Puerto Rico is part of the United States[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

article protection setting change[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Kosovo[edit]

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)[reply]

It never did after looking at revision history 48JcL48 (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh i see it 48JcL48 (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Economist_Democracy_Index&oldid=1218813322"