Talk:The Economist Democracy Index/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why can't this Talk page be edited?

Where is the list? I haven't seen the actual list for a long time.

Ninety percent of this talk page is junk from people who just want to discuss their political views. How is this considered useful for a Wikipedia editor? I tried deleting all the trash, but got warned from a Wikipedia guardian and my changes undone. It's a shame that guidelines are applied blindly like that, it makes Wikipedia more of a pain to deal with. I think this Talk page should be cleaned up in addition to any changes made to the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.245.4 (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just summing up this talk page so people don't have to read it: This page should be deleted because I don't agree with quite a few of the rankings made by the economist and as a result they don't exist, Obama is the antichrist. I'm basing this upon just one select criterion which, if taken by itself, is very different from the overall ranking of the country, and the USA is evil. The USA blah blah blah Obama Cannabis. I also disagree with their definition of the terms "Full" or "Partial" Democracy based upon my need to boil everything down to overstating one single issue, such as Sweden has to be last because it has a monarch, regardless of everything else, everybody has clearly been brainwashed by the liberal media who are trying to kill God (who is a Republican white male.) The fact that this is an article about the economist's index is irrelevant as I'm so commited to freedom and open press that anything I disagree with must not only be slated, but an encyclopedia should not even acnowledge that it exists, and the corporate USA who controls all governments everywhere by CIA mind-control is clearly responsible for anyone who might disagree with me. Blah Blah Blah Republic Blah.

That's essentially it.87.242.146.18 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• This was AN ULTIMATE COMMENT. Hats off. Slamazzar (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Full Democracy is Flawed also

One person, 1 Vote is equality but is also mob rule, how can this be fair? Some people can give a large amount to their society while others give nothing, and take a lot, and yet they both have 1 vote ? How can this be just ? Where a multiple votes per person system based on what a person gives to society would be far fairer. The more one gives - tax amount, volunteer work, charity work, national sporting commitments etc, the more votes one gets while the more one takes, the few votes they receive. This system would force citizens to be more productive and not just live off welfare (other people’s money) like in many western nations ATM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.59.150 (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That's great, but this is a discussion page, not a forum. --LJ Holden 23:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Article needs to be completely reworked

This article handles one democracy index as if it were the only one and a generic democracy index. Therefore this article should be moved to a separate article with the name "The Economist Intelligence Unit´s index of democracy".

A Google search will reveal that there are now several different democracy indices, and this article - with this title - should be a general article about all different democracy indices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.249.136 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The title is deeply dishonnest. It has to be changed into "The Economist Intelligence Unit´s index of democracy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.177.192 (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree : "The Economist Intelligence Unit´s index of democracy" --Azukimame (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The UK democracy

Being from the UK, I found it interesting to note that Gordon Brown served as our PM whilst we were (are) at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, and helped implement or control numerous excursions of the law regarding treatment of 'terrorists' and other emergency acts. Yet he himself was never elected to that position by the public and no poll was taken of the public regarding any of the decisions that he put in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnheritage (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

South Africa's status?

Countries above 7.9 are meant to be classified as full democracies but South Africa is 7.91 so surely it is (just) a full democracy rather than a hybrid regime as it is listed as at the moment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.232.196 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How come Iran is more democratic than Syria?

• 1. Syrian women do not have to wear veil, they can freely choose how to dress
• 2. Syrian citizens can choose any religion they wish with backup from the government
• 3. Syrian law provides mosques and churches to all citizens
• 4. First lady of Syria has an important symbolic prominent role, while First Lady of Iran is hardly seen
• 5. Syrian women are allowed to work and leave the house
• 6. Sharia laws are forbidden in Syria
• 7. Death penalty in Syria is only used for terrorism, rape and murder, while more often used in Iran for even more crimes
• 8. Syrian women have a prominent role in music and cinema
• 9. Syrian women have seats in the parliament
• 10. Syrian women can choose to divorce...

...while Iran is the opposite.

Shall I give more examples? I really don't get how Iran is more democratic. The idea that Iranian citizens can choose President is really not true. They can choose a number of candidates that are allowed to reign, but in reality they must share the ideas of the governmet - not the people. The Syrian authority have a bigger heart for the human soul than the Iranian.

Under Bashar al- Assads time as President hundreds of political prisoners were released and a steps were taken towards easing media restrictions. Did this ever happen in Iran after the revolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.162.196 (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to address that question to "The Economist", the magazine which published the Democracy Index. This article is just about the magazine's index, and this talk page is just about improving the article. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

The UK position on the list is incorrect. It should be 8.08. There are probably more errors in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.47.135.117 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Claim of errors seconded: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf <get the real list. South Korea and Taiwan are wrong on this one.

You know what, this entire article is a vandalism if you ask me, The Economist is perhaps worst publication to publish any research or data. They are totally unreliable, totally out of sink with the reality and totally flawed and full of inaccuracies.

That link is the 2007 report - this article is about the 2010 report - so there will be loads of differences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.146.18 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

sigh — ok look, the article is here because the index serves as one of the major indices and fills a unique role as a well conceived index that separates out economic concerns (so for example countries with large indigenous populations are not unfairly down-rated). The article goes out of its way to point out it is in no way a peer-reviewed, unbiased work. If your political slant is gives you a point of contention with the Economist in general that's just great ... but please keep it to yourself or find a useful way to participate: object on substance. Robbiemuffin (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

because the inflamatory nature just keeps getting better and better, I've gone ahead and deleted unsigned and malsigned comments after this. Robbiemuffin (talk)

Iran is a democracy?

Iran has elections, under the watch of U.N. and is probably more democratic than many of the countries currently on the list. Unfortunately, most of the western media have a pro-Israel policy and often misrepresent Iran when it comes to the democracy in Iran today, to name a few, Iran started the first womens games in Mid-Asia/Mid-East, had the first women taxi driver in Mid Asia and also allows biologically homosexuals to have sex change treatments. Iran's constitution is extremely similar to that of Italy including the pope. As far as democracy goes, it concerns nations providing free and fair elections where majority rules, regardless of whether it is secular or not. I will add Iran in couple of days unless someone has a valid and constructive criticism to this.--78.86.159.199 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In Iran you are only allowed to run for office if you are first accepted by the council of elders. A person opposed to sharia law would not be allowed to run for president. This makes Iran no more democratic than China. Also, this is a list published by the Economist and is not to be edited.

Please sign your comments. Iran may be a democracy. That isn't what this index shows. I do wish they showed the constituent parts for each country, it would make questions of this form less common. Robbiemuffin (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, most European medias are NOT pro-Israel. The most of them are against the Israeli terror. And Iran can't be called a democracy. Since 1979, they've executed or killed over 1 000 000 of it's 70 000 000 people - many of them were innocent. They kill people that are gay, non-islamists and more. That gives it away. 62.16.168.251 (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuals do not want sex change operations (you are confusing them with transexuals). Homosexuals do, however, want to live - which under the Iranian regime is not an option. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Unclear map

The map needs to be fixed, it is too unclear as to what country is rated what. QZXA2 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Scale

When the scale is mentioned in the wikipedia article it says "scale of ten" and then links to another wikipedia article named "scale of one to ten". The scale in the economist article is said to be "of 0 to 10", i.e. the equivalence of a scale from 1 to 11. I don't usually edit articles, should I just go ahead and change the link?

 * http://www.economist.com/images/rankings/Democracy.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.82.28 (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 

just do it mate, thats obviously a type-o which someone as observant as yourself should correct :)

obviously though, some people lose control and change things which arent even wrong, or just alter things to their opinion/political persuasion! but its fairly obvous that isnt your intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.48.119 (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Vatican

Where is the Vatican?? Helpsloose (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask The Economist. Micronations aren't listed in general. Cleduc (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably below North Korea... --78.54.179.197 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Vatican doesn't consider itself a Democracy plus it's a tiny state - so why bother trying to measure democracy there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.121.113 (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly an article name move?

I read the pdf version of the article, in order to describe the methology. I noted en passant, that the authors themselves relate their index to a number of other indices, by somewhat different criteria, and resulting in different rankings. With this as a background, I think the title Democracy Index is inadequate, and more pretentious than the report itself. An alternative article name would be Democracy index (The Economist), opening up for articles on other democracy indicies.-JoergenB (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just came to this page to suggest the exact same thing. I agree it does need a name change, as the economist is not an authority in its views regarding democracy, as the article name suggests. Sbw01f (talk)

There's no reason to disambiguate the title until such time as someone creates an article about a different "Democracy Index". The lead of the article should make clear the subject and its context. Mindmatrix 03:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that the naming of this article is consistent with the other names in the Category:Lists of countries by international rankings. (There is also a navigation box, probably with further articles; however, searching each item of the box in order to get an overview is much to cumbersome.) Thus, I just modify the introduction slightly.

However, I still think that we should consider namings showing whose index or rating we report on, in the title, for all these articles. As for now, the article names give the impression that (in objective reality or in the firm opinion of Wikipedia) these articles truly list countries by their "Corruption Perceptions", "Democracy", "E-readiness", "Ease of Doing Business", et cetera, to e.g. Corruption Perceptions (Transparency International) or The Economist's and IBM's index of E-readiness, to mention two possible models.

I actually also feel a bit worried over copyright issues. Is it clear that publishing the entire lists are not copyvios? Was this discussed before, somewhere?-JoergenB (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as replicating the list, there was discussion about this (but not about this list in particular) in 2005 and 2006, though I can't seem to find it now. There's also a policy about copying primary sources. Mindmatrix 19:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The wikisource probably is no alternative. In a sense, providing a summary and linking to http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf the original report] is what this article does; the full text is definitely longer than our quotations, and even the list itself is more detailed in the original. However, the list as quoted (including the ranking) still is an achievement by the "Economist Intelligence Unit", as it stands; and perhaps it's a bit long to quote under "fair usage".

As far as I see, there is no copyright notice whatsoever in the pdf report. On the other hand, the report does be found under the page www.economist.com; and under the same page, after a little search you may find a general terms of usage text, which is very very far from GFDL-compatible. It would be rather nice to know whether someone with a little more understanding of copyright laws checked this in the prior discussion. Else, perhaps we should put a question to our experts.-JoergenB (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a discussion from late 2003 (see Are lists copyright?). There's also this, this, and this. There were some discussions on the Village Pump as well, but I'm not going through that archive. Asking about this at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights is probably the best bet. Mindmatrix 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I let the question go on to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights (since I was not sure whether the discussions you quoted are applicable in this case). Probably, the people watching that page know.-JoergenB (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is stalinist-like totalitarian regime in North Korea, not authoritarian regime! --86.100.66.70 (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, 86.100.66.70, understand why changes from "authoritarian" to "totalitarian" in the document are reverted and will continue to be reverted! This article reports on the democracy index of The Economist. The Economist calls North Korea authoritarian. We report what The Economist writes. It would be a lie to list North Korea as totalitarian in this list, because this is not a list of what countries truly are in reality, but a list of what The Economist says that they are (and of the index they had calculated). The Economist classifies North Korea as "authoritarian", and if we should write that The Economist classifies North Korea as "totalitarian", then we would be lying. The "Democracy index" of The Economist doesn't use the term "totalitarian"; the "worst thing" they call a country is "authoritarian". If you think this is bad, 86.100.66.70, then write to The Economist and ask them to change their classification system!

Actually, I think this kind of opinion is an argument for modifying the name of the article. Obviously, at least one reader/editor thought that the article is about the democracy status of countries in some kind of absolute sense, instead of a listing referring to a specific report commissioned by a specific journal.-JoergenB (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke ?

I agree with our friend that mentionned that a title such as democracy index is very misleading. It should be clearly mentionned that this index (i feel pain calling it that) belongs to the Economist.

The arab world is not the region most reknown for its belief in western democracy. But come to this part of the world and tell them Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan etc.. are more democratic then Kuwait and you will be laughed at. Might as well include include England in the dictatorships, they don't have a bill of rights or civil codes.

I really find it odd that the United States is at the very bottom of free press countries, just above Togo and mauritania, barely making it into the free speech countries MAKING IT NONETHELESS. I also find it odd how american occuppied Iraq is at the bottom of the democratic countries, just above Pakistan the first in the list of authoritarian regime. Let me guess... america, Iraq or Afghanistan rank at the very bottom, yet just inside countries that respect human rights.

Is this a joke ? So is america and american standards, with all due respect to america, the quantitative criteria used by the economist and reporeters without borders and other "expert" sources.

I'm Kuwaiti and we here in great part consider it a democracy. Given "western democracy" as a criteria (although i don't believe that to be necessary) we would classify ourselves as hybrid regime, for the simple fact that the prime minister is appointed by the emir and not elected. On the other hand, the crown prince (2nd in line) can be prevented from being emir, and its up to parliament to then chose the monarch who has very little practical powers other then appointing the prime minister. England (and the "colonies") are not dictatorship because people realise that common laws and precedents govern england's basic functioning. If that is not taken into consideration England would be a dictatorship and the queen a dictator. Other countries reputations should not be tarnished on the account of the economist's incompetence and its incapability to know other countries common law and precedents. A country like singapore ranked 140 something in the freedom of press cannot possibly be democratic whilst countries ranked 60 are considered authoritarian regime.

This is a very complex and debatable issue, and methodology plays an important role i realise that. I'm simplifying my point of view and that is not enough, especially that this index belongs to the economist and not wikipedia.

PLEASE MAKE IT LESS MISLEADING HIGHLIGHT THE ECONOMIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS INDEX The average joe might think these rankings are universally agreed upon.

What a joke, please upload other sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 07:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am most baffled that Pakistan has not been classified as a defacto monarchy, because the Bhutto family always rules. Benazir Bhutto made her son the heir/ruler and her widower is only ruling as regent. The Bhuttos are a maharadja family, their rule is simply tradition and should be called a monarchy (with a parliamentary smokescreen). I disagree with other places, too, but that's not as misleading as the Pakistan one. 144.136.177.146 (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous Index

As a Greek, the people who invented democracy, this index is ridiculous. Athenian Democracy had negative voting and osctracism so in that sense not a single country is democratic. However when you break down the word it means the rule of the people. Now tell me please if the heads of the first five most democratic states belong to a heridetary line of Kings and Queens never elected by the people how are these countries democratic really? That's simply absurd and ridiculous. In a democracy the head of state is directly elected by the majority of people. The Kings and Queens of these countries are not. Therefore the should be as undemocratic as other dictatorships with the difference that people are happy in monarchies but unhappy in most dictatorships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the other most democratic countries but if there is a majority in Sweden that do not want the monarch, he will be removed. That is democratic, right? Additionally, he has no political power and is not allowed to make any political comments. Therefore, calling the monarch a "dictator" is ignorant. He is a diplomat. 92.80.100.109 (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you... You have to understand that the people responsible for defining democracy and freedom are running out of ideas. They are turning democracy into an adjective devoid of any of its original meaning, and alienating their definition from common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it unacceptable that constitutional monarchies are more democratic than actual republics. The rulers have absolute power, appoint governments etc. The monarchist rules through a government so if something goes wrong he will blame the government rather than him while he lives a carefree luxurious environment. I heard claims that the Economist was very biased and unscientific which I usually dismissed. Now I know its true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.194.163 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The index doesn't make sense. In Germany and Austria, for instance, because of their complex recent history, it is forbidden to dispute the number of Holocaust victims: one can be jailed for that. One cannot demonstrate the swastika in public or say certain things. Such bans may be righteous, but they're hardly democratic. --Humanophage (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Score

It's quite obvious that the scoring is rather arbitrary as they are all subjective scores. I have citizenship in two listed countries both with fairly high scores but one is more than a full point higher than the other; however the scores should be reversed as the one listed as "more democratic" is vastly less so. And this score doesn't take into account checks and balances, a country with complete mob (as in mob of people not organized crime) rule should have a pretty high score.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.173.229 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Change the title

I commented previously and the purpose of my comment was to highlight how the title is inappropriate. Unless the economist holds a monopoly or a patent on democracy the title shouldn't read democracy index, but the economists democracy index.

the criterias are: "Whether national elections are free and fair"; "The security of voters"; "The influence of foreign powers on government"; "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies".

Now the last two are a bit controversial. If a government is pressured into submitting to the wills of foreign power does that make it more of an authoritarian regime and less of a democracy ? It probably makes it less democratic (to no fault of its own), but it certainly does not make it more authoritarian.

The index is rubbish, the title is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 06:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria and an objective source

I guess this is a rant at the thousands of times I hear the word democracy being thrown around daily, but democratic republicanism (statism) is not as democratic a society can be.

Secondly, The Economist newspaper itself takes a biased viewpoint upon the world from a "pro-free trade" lens. Why is an entire article based upon a single source as if it's absolute writ?--76.205.212.142 (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

France

Where is France on the list? It looks like on the map that it should be somewhere in the same range as the US but its not on the list at all. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done: France is at no. 24. Portugal was written twice. Typing error. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What is a hybrid regime? and what Venezuela is on it

I don't have or find a clear definition of a hybrid regime and the word "regime" does not sound very nice. I live in Venezuela and I think this country is a democracy:

• we have an AVERAGE of 3 elections through free, secret vote and universal suffrage PER YEAR.
• All governing officials are elected through popular vote.
• There are over 200 political parties.
• There is a MEDIA WAR where the private media have called the President an "homosexual insane monkey" and channels still remain uncensored.
  • If you talk about the closure of RCTV well it was NOT closed its license was not renewed (because the license belong to the government) and even though is no longer on air it continues to broadcast its subliminal messages through Cable and Satellite television.
• Newspaper are even more critical than Radio stations or Television networks and none of them have stopped circulating.
• Nobody is being sent to jail, persecuted or tortured for his/her political views as it happened before 1993.

I think you should review this. The only reason why we might not be fully democratic is because there is control over how much American dollars we can buy, sell or spend. Thanks.Tony0106 (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Error with Italy and Slovenia

It says Italy and Slovenia are listed as full democracies. However, the guidelines explain that:

Full democracies—scores of 8-10.

That means Italy and Slovenia should be flawed democracies as their scores are 7.98 and 7.96. Does this need to be changed? Globe-trotter (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree with u... they ar below 8.00 so shouldn't be full democracy. change is needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.39.246.178 (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is incorrect, the number or the label? --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

isn't the label wrong??? actually i don't really know... which is incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.216.124.133 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, there was a recent dispute over this (no one violated 3rr), but the result is that they are full democracies. Let me explain, you rightly state that full democracies have scores of 8-10. How ever, flawed democracies have scores of 6 to 7.9. So in the case of Italy and Slovenia their scores are 7.98 and 7.96, if you round that to one decimal place, the result is: 8.0 and 8.0, as 6 and 8 both round up to the nearest ten. Thank you Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed Slovenia and Italy back to full democracy. this is clear from table (30 full democracy). Moreover, source contains the sentence "Italy upgraded from Flawed to Full Democracy".

USA is not a democracy

The constitution of USA article 4 section 4 clause 1 states that USA is a republic.USA should not be added as it is not a democracy but a republic.Atleast add a note —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.104.235 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... the same old song, presumably submitted by a Republican who opposes the Democratic party in the USA. The USA is a republic whose representatives are chosen by the vote of the people, so it is a democracy. It's true that the Constitution does not specify exactly how the states are supposed to choose their Senators, Representatives, and electors to the Electoral College, but a very large amount of legislation and case law does. Perhaps you've heard of the Voting Rights Act? —EWAdams (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The United States is a Democratic Republic in which The People select most of their representation in government, but not the President or his/her appointees. It should not be stated that the US is a "Full Democracy," because it isn't. It has nothing to do with Democrat/Republican, but with facts vs. fiction. In a full democracy, The People choose ALL of their representation by a simple majority, and that is not the way it is done in the United States. The People do not choose the President, and The People's representation in Congress does not depend directly, but only indirectly, on the population of their State. The USA is pretty far from a full democracy. 198.182.12.150 (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow! This is seriously the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard... --Christian140 (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is the least democratic

This definition is from the Wikipedia: Democracy is a form of government in which power is held indirectly by citizens in a free electoral system.

Based on the above definition, the democracy index of Saudi Arabia should be equal to zero. The government there is totally formed of Al-Saud family members (House of Saud), so the army leaders, minsters, governments official, police leaders are from "House of Saud" and all other forms of authority are ruled by Saud family members...

In North Korea there is a Party ruling the country, not a family, so ministers there when they die they will be replaced (not democratically) by another people in the communist party... but in Saudi Arabia, they will be replaced by their brothers, cousins or sons... so there is no way for any citizen (except Saud family members and their relatives) to be a minster (or even a general) in Saudi Arabia, in North Korea there is a way (by being a communist your entire life, then you may be chosen......... or you may not, but there is a chance).

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world which officially forbid democracy, in North Korea there is no democracy, but the government there did not declare that democracy is evil (even that it believe it is) but the Saudi Arabian government officials [like the head of the religious police (Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice)] declares that democracy is evil and forbidden, also in the Saudi interpretation of their constitution democracy is against god's will and it is the devil way to destroy human society (actually Saudi Arabia have no constitution, it is just a 1400 years old holy book named "Quran" which is their constitution).

Saudi Arabian constitution = Quran = God is the ruler >>> King rules in his name >>> his relatives help him >>> people should obey.

The written paragraph above is all about the above democracy definition, if we extend the definition to include other democracy elements (like freedom of speech and thought), Saudi Arabia democracy index will not improve at all, its democracy index would be -2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.225.230 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.21.201 (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A link to a Swedish blog in english with a critical review of the EIU rating for Sweden

Someone has removed the link to a Swedish blog with a critical review of the EIU rating of Sweden. This was apparently done without arguing why. The link has now been added again. If someone wants to remove it then please present your arguments before doing so. 79.136.76.102 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL and WP:NOT. Wikipedia does not allow links to blogs unless they are authoritative for their subject. Mindmatrix 15:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And it what way exactly does the blog in question not conform? You claim this but you do not argue it in any detail. In what way is it not "authoritative" for its subject? It is neutral since it does not express a particular point of view. It does not present new research, but contains a number of references to authoritative sources and relevant debate. It is of course also highly relevant to the subject. So, how does it not conform? 79.136.76.102 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was me who removed it, sorry it seems i wasn't logged on at the time. The article in the blog is a POV diatribe at best, and verging on liberal propaganda, visible from the multiple references to 'liberal think tanks' and the like. It is also obviously not written by a recognised authority. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your politico-ideological polemics. I, therefore, don't need to argue on its removal, you should have argued before its introduction. As Mindmatrix suggested you should read WP rules on external links before posting. (KLA (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

1. You give only one concrete argument in you reply, and that is the false claim about liberal think tanks. The articles contain a mixture of references, the majority of which are professors at Swedish universties, reports from government inquiries, and the like. Some of their research is also conducted by recognised scholars, and is treated and referenced as such by other scholars. When did recognised Swedish scholarship become propaganda? And when did it become propaganda to include many different points of view in a review?

2. You only mention one article, which suggests you have not read the six articles that comprise the critical review. Maybe reading the review in its entirety may be a good starting point?

I wonder if you perhaps have been contacted by a company that has an interest in that the link disappears? Maybe in exchange for a handfull of cash? Or maybe you are just a run of the mill leftist rabulist, who produces more insults than arguments, and the few arguments you produce are false?

I did check the rules, and I found content criteria. I did not see the term recognised authority, but I probably missed it. Maybe you can show me where it is, and how it is defined by Wikipedia?

79.136.76.102 (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now checked the rules again, and I found the term recognised authority, and I also found that there is no reason why the blog should not pass those criteria. What the rules say is that this restriction is very limited, and the only clarifying information given is a reference to notability. And we pass the criteria for notability.

So, what is left of the arguments from Klassikal? Well, nothing, except slurs and lies.

There is also a need to further discuss the issue of possible corruption:

- Why is this article only about The Economist, instead of one generic article about democracy indices, and one specific about the EIU index?

- How is it that detailed results from the EIU index are published by Wikipedia, when we have shown that they are not authoritative?

- Why was our link in place for at least two months, before it suddenly was deleted, just when our blog was starting to grow with more damning evidence against the EIU:s rating of Sweden?

- Why is it that the person who has removed the link resorts to politicised slurs, instead of facts, and seemingly biased interpretations of rules?

83.233.232.115 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Listen, i don't want to start a flame war or anything like that. I just want to play by the rules. You claim you article in not POV, i disagree. But that doesn't matter because linking the article is against other WP rules.

Firstly, you claim that your article "does not present new research, but contains a number of references to authoritative sources and relevant debate." The fact that your article has references does not exclude it from being "original research". Many articles could only be based on secondary sources and still be original research. If you had published your analysis in a journal or newspaper, then it could pass that criteria. Anyone could write an article about anything, it could be the best article in the world, with tons of references, but if its not published in a newspaper or journal or equivalent it would still be against WP rules. It would only be allowed from a blog if it is written by an recognised authority.

The "recognised authority" clause says:

"Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)."

Thus, if you feel that you, the writer, is so important that you deserve a Wikipedia page in your name, then sure, your article should be linked. Notice that i not saying that you don't present arguments by recognised authorities; i am rather saying that you are not not a recognised authority. If you can find a personal blog or whatever of a Swedish politician, or an article in a newspaper or any other recognised authority that criticises the Democracy Index you are welcome to link it. I mean no disrespect but you are not even registered in WP. As for the personal attacks i won't even bother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klassikal (talk • contribs) 07:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a joke

I concur with those above who have wondered aloud whether or not this index was a joke. I've concluded that it must be. As far as I'm aware, Bolivia is the most democratic state on the planet today: Morales was selected by the common people from among their own ranks -- which has never and will never happen in any corporate state -- and he was affirmed by 45% of the population in 2005 and 57% in 2008, which will likewise never happen in a corporate state. (That's percentage of the population, not just of voters, which is a distinction that the corporate states are loathe to have pointed out, since it would reveal the fact that only a third or less of the populations of those states actually approve of the corporate stooges that are trotted out for their approval every few years in order to maintain the illusion of legitimacy.) Yet, lo and behold, Bolivia is listed in the middle of the pack as a "flawed" democracy. Why? Because Morales is taking no shit from the US -- that's the "flaw." But, it won't be long before the corporate media has finished branding him a dictator so he can be toppled without undo bleating from the sheeple. This article should be deleted, since it is being linked from other articles as a legitimate reference for which states constitute democracies. An illegitimate propaganda index is thereby being legitimized. How is that encyclopedic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk • contribs)

why don't you actually look at the report before commenting on its accuracy. The list does not just measure the right to vote, but also the standard of civil liberties, voter participation, and how the country's political system works. Bolivia was listed as a "hybrid regime" because Morales uses public funds for his political campaigns and the parliament of Bolivia tends to rubber stamp every law he writes. This is all available in the report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.150.68 (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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) 07:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Several countries have bicameralism, not shown as such

In the tabel shown, several countries do have bicameralism (at least as far as I can understand the definition). The Netherlands (Nederland) has the "Tweede kamer" (approx. the House of Representatives in the US) and the "Eerste kamer" (approx. the Senate in the US), so IMHO it should rate as bicameralism. Same for the UK (House of Commons, House of Lords). Rgds, Hens Kolff (Nederland). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.194.27 (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Does this list EVER change

Does the list ever change. Does it update. Many countries change their way of living and/or their government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamid10 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Change update

I agree I think someone should find out if another one was made since the above guy is right I don't know but as someone who travels off this list it would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.61 (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Update?

Did the Economist group publish a democracy index for 2009? 2010? Ben Gershon - בן גרשון (Talk) 17:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by בן גרשון (talk • contribs)

The 2010 Democracy Index has been published recently and can be downloaded here: http://www.eiu.com/public/democracy_index.aspx . You have to register to download it. I would be happy to update the table, but is it a problem that the only source requires registration? The 2006 and 2008 publications are available without registration, but the latest one is not. --Antti Salonen (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

registation is free.plz update it http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf 122.162.113.180 (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 Update

I updated the tables to be in line with the recently published 2010 report. The map is not updated! I also did not touch the "Type of government" column, which may be out of date in the case of some countries. For example Guinea's overall score improved quite a bit so I wonder if it's still a military junta?

In general the 2010 report showed that most full democracies had their overall scores drop since 2008, for example due to decreased political participation. On the other hand, many flawed democracies had improved overall scores. The countries with most notable increases in overall scores were Ghana (now in the flawed democracy category), Malawi, Kuwait, Togo and Guinea. On the other hand, Madagasgar for example had a huge drop in the overall score as a result of the political unrest. Fiji, Gambia, Egypt, Afghanistan and Iran also went significantly downhill since the 2008 report.

I wonder if the table should be added a column to show change? If so, would it be better to show the change since the first report (2006) or the previous one (2008)? Antti Salonen (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

MAP needs to be updated

Map in this article is misleading cos it showas not accurate data.For example in Europe France, Italy, Greece and few other countries need to be shown on the map as FLAWED DEMOCRACIES.can somebody please change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.48.160 (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I created a new version of the map (by just recoloring the old one) and updated the article to use it. It's still using the same key, which I find a bit problematic. For example it's using a different shade of blue for a small number of hybrid regimes with indexes between 4 and 4.5, and that shade is very similar to other hybrid regimes with scores between 4.5 and 6. Compare Iraq (4.00) and Russia (4.26) to Turkey (5.73) for example. Eight shades of blue might be a bit too much, so a different palette (for example green-yellow-red) might be a better choice if we want differences between countries in the same category to be visible.

Also, the map is still raster (PNG) instead vector graphics (SVG). It's very easy to update with any graphics editor with a paint bucket tool, but SVG would obviously be better otherwise. I'm willing to provide one, but I would like to use a different set of colors. Antti Salonen (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's another, and in my opinion a better version of the current map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Democracy_Index_2010_green_and_red.png

It's using nine different colors: Four shades of green for full democracies and flawed democracies, yellow and orange for hybrid regimes and three shades of red for authoritarian regimes. Each color covers one point of the scale, except for the darkest shade of red (0 to 1.9) because there are and have not been any countries with scores much below 1. If I don't hear any objections I will replace the currently used version of the 2010 map with this one. --Antti Salonen (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Where are the scores for individual questions?

While obviously this isn't a direct issue for this page, I've looked up at Israel's score for civil liberties and answered the questions for myself as an Israeli. I disagree with the 5.x score the Economist has given under this part.

• it should be notes that some discrepancies exist on the data
• if there is a link to the individual question/answers per county, it should be given —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.204.229 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The UK

It might be a really daft question, but; How can the UK be considered a full democracy when it is a constitutional monarchy and the head-of-state is ultimatley unelected?--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Over three months later and nobody offers an answer?--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The standards are:

"Whether national elections are free and fair"; "The security of voters"; "The influence of foreign powers on government"; "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies".

Whether the head of state is elected has nothing whatsoever to do with any of these, so long as he or she doesn't have any political power--which the Queen does not. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, an answer finaly :) lol --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly 4 of the top 5 and 7 of the top 10 are constitutional monarchies. Who'd have thought it? Suggests evolution not revolution makes for better democracies? Anyway, his is not the place to have that debate. Epeeist smudge (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Although 3 of them are the same monarchy. I'm still of the opinion that a constitutional monracy is not a full democracy, mainly becase you can't take any high-up political position in the UK (as an example) without swearing an oath to the Queen; which means that anybody who has a problem with the monarchy, including myself, can't really campaign for any of those positions. I'm no political expert but this seems to discount national elections in the UK from being completely "free and fair". --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Are these studies neutral?

Hi, i am surprised to see some Latin American countries depicted as flawed democracies. If they were flawed, then there would be much more vote fraud and international watch groups wouldn't be allowed during elections. It seems to me like Latin America, not all, but for the most part has moved from authoritarian regimes to full democracies (with imperfections but that is expected). But the facts show that the people have been able to elect their own governors. In cases such as Venezuela the dictator (that can be discussed) was elected by the Venezuelan people, in Colombia a president wanted to last 3 terms instead of 2 as it is allowed in full democracies, and he was not allowed by the judicial system. In conclusion I have doubts over the neutrality of this kind of index. If the index was fair then it should question the democracy of countries like the United States where two parties have prevailed and are by themselves powerful machinery whose electoral system has failed too (Gore vs Bush for instance). I hope anyone working on this article takes this into consideration as to make the article more neutral. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the report by The Economist to see what factors affect the overall score for each country in their index. Also, I wouldn't pay too much attention on the category names - every democracy has its flaws - but rather the scores in different categories and trends. France and Italy also fall into the category flawed democracies, and the UK and United States are also not far away and going downhill.

The latest report summarizes the situation in Latin America as follows: "Despite progress in Latin American democratisation in recent decades, many countries in the region remain fragile democracies. Levels of political participation are generally low and democratic cultures are weak. There has also been significant backsliding in recent years in some areas such as media freedoms." See page 25 for more. --Antti Salonen (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No they are not neutral. What you have here is once more the presumed universality of capitalism. So bourgeois democracy, which is one of the weakest forms is held up as the paragon when it is nothing of the sort. The Gini coefficient or HDI can to some extent be used as a counterbalance to this as actual measures of what power people have in different societies that makes an actual difference in their lives. That The Economist. a bastion of the order, is held up as an authority makes my point. See also my comments at mainstream economics. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The use of this thing in articles

While I see nothing wrong with an article about this index, I've also seen it used in some articles about regional or national areas as if it really meant something. Maybe if this article were more critical, examining the sources and methodologies or showing explanations or clarifications from peer review, that would make more sense. Without that, I don't think this can be used as a helpful index without some sort of warning. This is an "open content" encyclopedia and the index is based on what some commercial publication cooked up in their private offices for whatever benefits they saw fit, so we can't take it at face value.

While some aspects it brings up may be of some use, this index is mainly a way to try to define democracy to conform with the expectations, points of view and "free market" ideologies of powerful OECD countries. Otherwise democracy means "the leadership or rule of citizens". In our time, citizens are the entire adult population that's considered equal before the law and benefits from a series of essential human rights, so all mechanisms that give these people collective power in different ways are contributing to democracy, from voting, to general economic welfare, access to information, education and health, the role of security forces, the treatment of poorer portions of the population, labor representativeness and initiative, the importance of rallies and demonstrations, protection from commercial exploitation and predation and what the state does to the sovereignty of other countries all contribute. You can't reduce that to "there's lots of voting that analytic market companies consider done as expected" unless you want a form with little substance (which can perhaps be conveniently filled with something).

This index just considers voting and elections, and even narrows that down by asking stuff that avoids certain issues that may make elections less fair to most people, such as powerful lobbies pressuring elections or the elected officials with monetary incentives or other advantages that are hard to track or control. It also gives great value to the foreign influence against "democracy", but apparently it's fine if the country is causing such impairments to other countries. If country A helps destroy the sovereignty, and thus democracy, in country B by manipulating elections, we're supposed to consider it democratic, as long as no one manages to similarly abuse its own citizens from outside. I could probably go on, but I'm simply trying to say that while lists look cool on pages, this index isn't something "objective" that can be used as a measure of democracy in articles, much less if in the article here we can't add more than just an echo of what it presents itself as. Who is like God? (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Zaire?

Why is Zaire on the list? The first list was made in 2006 and Zaire hasn't existed since 1997. What's the reasoning for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.91.6 (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I've replaced it with DRC--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Serious Discussion on Title Change

I think there is scope for a serious discussion on a change of title for this article. I quite realise that the article points out that it is the Economist IU's index and that there is no conflicting article requiring disambiguation, but the tone of this discussion board, consisting largely of "my country is more domocratic (or less democratic) than yours" or "monarchies can't bae democracies" or just plain "this index is a joke" suggests wide misunderstanding of the purpose of the article (i.e. to report EIU's findngs). Mentioning the Economist in the title would not entirely head this off, but it might help. It might also be worth mentioning the economist's self confessed credo of market driven liberal democracy (shouldn't be hard to find a reference, they are not shy about it). Read properly, this is all made quite clear, but it is being misread sufficiently often that we should do what we can to make it clearer. Can we have a reasoned discussion about this? Epeeist smudge (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree; mainly because I have fallen victim to this misunderstanding in the past. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Colors

There are several countries that are colored by the wrong category on the used file, File talk:Democracy Index 2010 green and red.svg. Central African Republic should be the brown instead of red and Afghanistan should be red instead of brown. --143.238.91.206 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Palestine is not a country (yet)

Palestine is not a country, how do I change the table to say "Palestinian Territories" instead? Maybe next year they will have a country and then it will be changed back but currently it isn't a sovereign country-- Someone35  17:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Being occupied by a foreign, oppressive power doesn't magically make you stop being a country. 203.59.103.93 (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

It was never a country, it doesn't have the right to vote in the UN, it doesn't have an army and it is controlled by Israel. Therefore it is not a country and it never was.-- Someone35  06:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

new index

they have just released the newest one lets get switching — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.61 (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. 48Lugur (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Egypt - Authoritarian or hybrid?

The article states that rank under 4 is authoritarian, yet Egypt has 3,95 and is labeled as "hybrid". The original article has Egypt as "hybrid" in a list, but later is written the following:

"Eight countries had a change in regime type in 2011. In four there was a regression and four had an upgrade. Portugal deteriorated from a “full democracy” to a “flawed democracy”, a development that had already affected Greece, Italy and France in 2010. Ukraine and Guatemala regressed from flawed democracies to hybrid regimes, and in Russia a long process of regression culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime in light of the cynical decision by Vladimir Putin to return to the presidency and because of deeply flawed parliamentary elections. Tunisia experienced the biggest increase of any country in its democracy score in 2011. It moved from an authoritarian to a hybrid regime. Two Sub-Saharan African countries also moved from authoritarian to hybrid regimes (Mauritania and Niger), and Zambia improved from a hybrid to a flawed democracy."

The eight countries are: Portugal, Ukraine, Guatemala, Russia, Mauritania, Niger, Zambia, Tunisia. As Egypt was authoritarian last year, they should be labeled as "authoritarian" this year. More opinions, please? HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Egypt's score of 3.95 rounds up to 4.0 when rounded to one decimal, and this is why it's listed as a hybrid regime (4.0 to 5.9) in the 2011 index. I fixed the table in the article accordingly. Antti Salonen (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but why the report says that "Eight countries had a change in regime type in 2011. In four there was a regression and four had an upgrade."? HeadlessMaster (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Added Egypt into the intro section accordingly. 48Lugur (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

THE ORIGINAL REPORT says about "eight countries". HeadlessMaster (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Map

You guys do realize there hasn't been a 2012 report? The new one was for December 2011. And Camoka's map had tons of errors. 98.209.18.176 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just to add to this, the 2012 map is still in Wikimedia Commons. That should be deleted as it is somewhere between misleading and outright falsifiation. However, I can't seem to delete this as it's in Wikimedia Commons. Can someone please either delete me or show me how to do it, because there is no way we should have this map, even as an image file. Maybe keep it if it's renamed to File:What I think the 2012 democracy index ought to be.png, but I don't think anyone would want that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sweden at the top!!??

In Sweden we have to wait for four years to be allowed to vote once and then again wait for four years to be allowed to vote once again and so on. Add to that, the referendums in Sweden are not for real only "advisory" to the Swedish political class. In other words you have missed the most important criteria of all: how often can a citizen vote in a correct election or referendum in a democracy! 17:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Heja Sverige —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.248.215 (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is much fail in Sweden nowdays, see the FRA-law --81.172.223.220 (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We have initiated a critical review of the rating for Sweden. Google sweden democracy index review and look for wordpress grundlag. Note, this is serious, not some spurious ranting! We provide links to Swedish sources and experts.[[[Special:Contributions/79.136.76.102|79.136.76.102]] (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)]

As a swede I take great offence at being listed first. It puts our government, who has a penchant for pushing through invasive legislations no matter if it's the left or right block in control of the government, in a far far too positive light. Just google FRA, and all the issues regarding pirate bay. Talk about foreign intererests dictating political policy for Sweden. No offence but things like this puts the credability of the entire thing in serious jeopardy.

You did surely not understand the system of the democracy index. Sure, there is FRA in Sweden and other things, but the Swedes are allowed to CRITICISE it and DEMONSTRATE, show their anger toward the POLITICIANS that came up with that idea.

You think that is allowed in some other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.162.196 (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not an "expert" of any of theese issues, so I realize my critique is just personal opinion. However, I do feel I'm allowed to question the respresentation of the thing. I got the impression that this was sort sort of peer reviewed study from looking at the name alone.

Please make it ABSOLUTELY clear that this is a democracy index by a specific group. I'd go as far as to rename the entire thing "Democracy index FROM/BY xxx" or similiar. Caps for my emphasis & xxx is for the name of the organisation in question.

Annoying username (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert either, but I am from Sweden and I have been living many years in 3 other corners of Europe and I can tell there is a big difference. The FRA-law was just putting a law to a practise used for a few decades, and American interests with a lot of money can of course dictate that PirateBay is a bad thing, but other than this the democracy has very few flaws. The people can vote and start political parties freely, everything is more transparent and visible. That the people were idiots and voted for the wrong party does not mean the democracy is flawed.92.80.100.109 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

what is wrong with sweden being first

- i mean come on you find it to be an outrage that sweden is first. I mean i personally think iceland or finland are the most democratic countries but sweden and those other countries I listed are certainly more democratic then the US if you don't think so give me a fucking break you are most certainly not the freest just because your president's say "we are the leaders of the free world" you can cite as many sources as you want but there is nothing that can make me or to be honest a lot of people around this world on the issue of whether the US is the most democratic. My other problems with this list are chad being the second least free bullshit turkmenistan which is number three has a personality cult and the whole nine yards which Chad does not. Having Burkina Faso or the Central African Republic down there are also bull Burkina Faso is definatly not one of the world's least free countries it has a great government which although is not democratic has helped Burkina become a fast growing country. The car is sure not the most perfect democracy but President Francois Bozize overthrew a repressive government in 2003 and later stepped down to run in elections that were considered by every observer there from all over the world to be free and fair. I don't agree Saudi Arabia is less free then the DPRK give me a break. To the kuwait guy totally agree Kuwait is widely considered to be one of the most democratic governments in the Middle East. forgive the rant but to be honest I support the gov'ts of most of the countries low on this list and they state above in how they measure where the countries go they use main statistical evidence

Hungary

I want to suggest to take a closer look to the changes in Hungary during the last years with a majority of 2/3s of the rightwing party FIDESZ. The change of constitution, the new laws against freedom of press and mass media, the changes to the system of the constitutional court and a lot of other changes show: This country is on a way to being comparable with Belarus and Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.119.6 (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

hybrid regime in Turkey?

it may be little unexpected for lots of turk. Actually ı didnt surprise because of misleading against current party in power. I must say that until mid 2000s we havent even democray.Whenever majorty gain Primeminister,Army or Laws stopped them and send them jail.We couldnt talk about our religion and anything about religion.Basicly If yu say i am muslim yu were treated like second class people.Its little irronic because %95 of Turkey define theirself As Muslim.Today Many thing changed we can say whatever we want freely but still Lots of People insulting us (i meant people who voted leading party)

No I dont believe Turkey is Hybrid regime But I know that some people unhappy because of the losing control.They rulled Turkey 80 years, Eventhoug They arent more than %25 of Turkey.I am sure Yu can read lots of artical about this,but this is truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.14.78.121 (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That is issue that should be brought towards Economist Intelligence Unit, not wikipedia talk page. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

nominal type of government

the EIU democracy index doesn't list nominal types of government or contain this as part of its analysis. there are also errors in the types of nominal government listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.30.187 (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Colour coded table needs to have lighter/softer shades to reduce eye strain and increase legibility

The colours are way too strong and makes the text barely visible. The very dark shades of red is also an eye strain. Consider choosing lighter shades? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didemo (talk • contribs) 07:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

CEE countries and democracy index

I am not sure how much informative is the mean democracy index for CEE countries. In this group you find such a diverse countires as the Czech Republic and Belarus. It is really an artificial group which is lumped together for some historical reasons enriched by certain level of politically uncorrect and preconceived idea of similarity between these countries. Guys, we 22 years after the fall of Iron Courtain! Have you noticed that? Start with comparing the democracy index of the Czech Republic and Belarus, then you can continue with Human Development index etc etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.113.86.132 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

I believe that the amount of material in this article taken directly from Democracy Index 2011 has strayed into WP:COPYVIO territory, and I have asked that it be looked at by someone with better knowledge of Wikipedia policies in that regard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Beyond My Ken asked me to look at this because I work with copyright concerns on Wikipedia. As was brought up in 2008 on this talk page, there are copyright concerns with this material. Essentially, lists of facts are not copyrightable, but lists that involve value judgments or creative selection are. Rankings are copyrightable unless they are on obvious criteria - for instance "top sellers". Please see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, which includes some background on how lists are traditionally handled on Wikipedia as well as some background on law from the Wikimedia Foundation attorneys. I've blanked this content and will list at the copyright problems board, but I think it is very likely that we need to come up with a safe way to present as much of the material as we can instead of using the list itself, unless the company is willing to license it (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the only article the index is featured on, and removing it makes the article pretty much useless. We might as well delete the article if it's not going to have the list. The list is also featured on the article List of Freedom Indices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.196 (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the amount of material being quoted. This article essentially quoted the entire graphic from the source, which is copyrighted, and this is not allowed, it's too much material. If there is another Wikipedia article which quotes a similar amount of material, it needs to be removed from there are well. Some other articles quote material, but not nearly as much. How much can be quoted is sometimes difficult to determine, which is why we have discussions like this one, but the amount that was here is clearly much too much to pass legal muster. Removing it doesn't make the article "useless", since we can synopsize the various conclusions of the report, and we provide a link for interested people to get the full report directly. Please see WP:COPYVIO for additional information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at List of freedom indices and the amount used there doesn't seem to me to violate copyright, but Moonriddengirl has a much better sense of where the line is, so I'd defer to her judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm very hesitant to weigh in on the safe amount, given the surprising feedback I received from our legal team when this was broached to them many months ago. We had always thought we could do, say, "Top 10" out of 500. They felt that this could be unsafe practice, since the "Top 10" was the most marketable. But in terms of the second article, it at least offers comparison to other indices, which is somewhat transformative. There's nothing wrong with linking to the full list from this article, if a direct link is possible, but otherwise we aren't here to reproduce creative works so much as to talk about them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That was kind of my feeling as well about List of freedom indices, that it was a creative assemblage of a number of different lists, which is markedly different from just copying one list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked the copyright holder, london@eiu.com, to wich extent they want to be quoted.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. :) Please keep in mind that if they permit reproduction of the list, they'll have to do so through permissionswikimedia.org, and the material will have to be compatibly licensed. Otherwise, we are restricted to the amount permitted by WP:NFC for the same reason we are not permitted to accept material where permission is granted for Wikipedia only. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is their reply :

Dear Marc, Thank you for your enquiry. The full list is fine to show. Kind regards, Adriana, Economist Intelligence Unit, www.eiu.com

.

It's possible to ask her to transfer her mail to permissionswikimedia.org, but I can't think they would license their work under a license allowing commercial reuse. My goal was just to understand their POV on the quotation reuse, and it was the initial question, not to ask the economist if they want to become wikipedians. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

They don't have to become Wikipedians, they just have to license their property in a way that's compatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, and that means, unfortunately, that it must be available for commercial re-use. It's nice that they're willing to let us use the list in full, but our policies won't allow us to without the proper licensing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Putting a work here under a gfdl license is making you a contributor, even if you don't write in wikimarkup and don't participate in talk pages. Your initial question was asking if putting the full list was a quote or a copyright violation. Asking a group to decide on grey areas like that is often sterile, so I asked the most appropriate person : the copyright holder. They feel fine to be quoted. Why do you want more? Live with that. Confirm their position, but if you want to ask people living on their intellectual production to abandon it, I won't defend that. I'll let you explain the gfdl necessity to Adriana at londoneiu.com --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to explain it to them; I do it quite a lot. :) If you want to forward their letter to permissionswikimedia.org, please let me know. If you put "attention Moonriddengirl" in the subject line, it'll help make sure I'm the agent who gets it, so she doesn't get a form letter. Not that the form letter is rude, per se, but - well, it's the difference between getting a template and getting a note. If she's being helpful, I'd prefer that she be treated well. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

So is this just in limbo now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.196 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not "in limbo". At this moment, the material is a copyright violation and cannot be re-added to the article. Unless and until a license some through to OTRS, that will remain the case. I have reverted your restoration of the material to the article, which violates our policy. If you do it again, you are subject to being blocked from editing. Everyone reading this comment should take that as a final warning, albeit from a non-admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So if they already told us the full list was fine to show, what's the problem? This reeks as somewhat authoritarian, and I can't say I appreciate the idea of restricting the flow of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.196 (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As explained above, the material is copyrighted and for us to have it here (copy-paste style) it has to be licensed under a free license such as CC BY SA. We just need them to send an e-mail confirming they want it released under a free license. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I was in cc on 11 september on a mail from permissions@wikimedia.org to London@eiu.com asking for the CC license without any response yet. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Still no response. :/ I've removed the copyvio template for now along with the section in the hope that this will prevent our needing to semi-protect again. At this point, it seems alternatives need to be considered. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so can we agree on citing only the overall score, without the 5 categories (Electoral process and pluralism, Functioning of government, Political participation, Political culture, Civil liberties)? with perhaps year on year evolution? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not for the entire list, that would also be a copyvio. The best thing to do is to find another source that analyzes the data and use it as a cite for a text section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so could you remove every other list not generated in wikipedia, in the meantime I'll erase every list created by wikipedians based on the WP:OR policy. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I put back a censored list with only the interval of the index (9-10, 8-9, 7-8, etc.). Same information as in

wich was'nt removed, so I consider this information is OK to show. If you think the ranking (1.2.3.4.5.etc.) is too much a copyright violation, you could remove the column but please leave the list, otherwise the countries out of the list section doesn't make sense and you have to respect the work of the editors who put a list with the nature of each regime. I find it bleak to censor a democracy list. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not censored, it's copyrighted, and we do not have the owner's permission to use it under our policies. The map is a creative re-conceiving of the data, and is therefore (probably) not a copyvio. Please do not restore the list, copyright violations are taken very seriously here, and you are liable to be sanctioned for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Marc on this one. The index is already available for free on the Economist's website, and we're not making a profit off posting the list here, so what's the problem? Plus they already gave us permission to show the full list. All of this bureaucratic red tape appears to be quite at odds with what Wikipedia is supposed to accomplish. --ZacharyGeorgeNN (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The full list is on the foreign language Wikipedias! Why is no one cracking down on that? We need to bring the list back!76.163.252.90 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that why you vandalized my user page? [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Look! The French version of the article has even more "copyright violations": http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indice_de_d%C3%A9mocratie Do you deny that you like space cats and Bashar Al Assad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.163.252.90 (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. No one here has any authority over French Wikipedia, or any other language's Wikipedia. If you're upset that those projects are carring copyright violating material, I suggest you contact the Wikimedia Foundation and ask to talk to the legal department. What's not going to happen is English Wikipedia changing its policies on the basis of the mistakes of other Wikipedias. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Another go at the issue of copyright violation

Sorry for starting this discussion again. I added a version of the list to the article at 08:34 today and my change was reverted by Beyond My Ken at 11:02 today with an edit summary of "Undid revision 547250197 by W163 (talk) Please see talkpage, this has been deteremined to be a copyright violation". I apologize for not looking at the talk page before, I should have. I've read it now. I haven't gone back to reread the Wikipedia policies or the legal opinion yet, but I will. But in the meantime I have some questions and observations:

• The following comment is from the List of freedom indices#Current assessments:

"Here is a table of the assessments in each index for most countries of the world. For exact rankings rather than assessments, refer to the individual index articles."

The statement is true for some indices and not for others. I added the list to this article in an attempt to make that statement accurate.

• In the previous discussion on this talk page above there is a comment about a request for permission being made on 11 September 2012 and another comment about not haven't received a reply by 1 October. After that there is nothing more said about the request. Was a reply ever received? If not, did anyone attempt to follow-up?
• While I didn't read this discussion before adding the list, I did think about the issue of copyright. While most of the information in the list came from Table 4 in the Democracy index 2012 report, it wasn't simply a copy and paste effort. The list I added is different than Table 4 from the report: (i) it looks visually different, (ii) it includes country flags, (iii) it includes wikilinks to country articles, (iv) it has colors, (v) it has regions in addition to country names, (vi) it is presented in a different order, (vii) it is sortable by any of the columns, and (viii) it includes country rankings in addition to scores. I thought that that was enough to transform the list and avoid the copyright issue.
• The idea that this is OK is reenforced by the fact that we did get permission from Adriana at the Economist Intelligence Unit to include the full list in the article, although not in the form necessary to satisfy all of the Wikipedia rules. I'd like to combine the fact that the list has been transformed with the fact that the copyright holder doesn't seem to mind the use of the data, to make the argument that adding the list is in fact not a copyright violation. Or at least that having a list as part of the article is valuable enough and the transformation and informal permission makes the risk small enough to allow us to be bold and add the full list here. In the unlikely event that the copyright owner raises an issue in the future, we can deal with it then based on the specific complaint.
• There are many lists elsewhere in the English Wikipedia that are similar in form and amount of content to this one. I don't want to start people running around to find and delete those lists, but I will say that the existence of those lists certainly leads editors not schooled in the fine points of copyright and Wikipedia policies into thinking that such lists are OK. And perhaps they are OK and we are just being too conservative in applying what we think is the copyright law in some cases.
• When a list is or isn't a copyright violation is certainly a judgement call. But, if we are too conservative in our judgements and delete information that in fact may not be a copyright violation, that is a form of "corporate" self-censorship and something to be avoided.
• As an alternate, if we can't find a way to include the information here, could we include the DI information in a list in a different article that includes data from other "freedom" lists to allow side-by-side comparisons? That isn't a particularly good solution since it is hard to include enough data to allow both year-by-year and report-by-report comparisons, but it might be better than nothing.

-- Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material

I understand this list by the Economist Intelligence Unit is copyrighted. Could we maybe include a link to the official list in the actual article? Johnxsmith (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a link in the External Links section already, isn't that sufficient? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"Countries and territories not included in this list" section

It doesn't seem to make sense to have the extensive "Countries and territories not included in this list" section when the "this list" referred to is no longer included in the article. I would have just deleted it but since there seems to be some dispute around this article I thought it better to discuss first. - htonl (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the heading has now been changed to "... the list", but I still don't think it makes sense to have the countries *not* on the list if we don't have the list itself. (Especially when the "Dependencies" list includes such things as the Antarctic territories, which have no government at all.) In fact, I think the not-included list is WP:OR, since as far as I can tell some Wikipedian has got (from somewhere uncited) a list of all countries and territories and then removed those listed in the Democracy Index. - htonl (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the list should go, and if it stays it should reformatted so that it doesn't leave so much white space on the page. Bevo74 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Where does the 'non-list' come from? Is it WP:OR, or copied from the same place as the deleted main list? Bevo74 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the list but the removal was reverted without any explanation. In my opinion the list should go because: a) we have a list of countries not included but no list of countries that are included! b) Also, I agree that this list would fall into OR, because a list of countries not included was not (obviously) included in the source. Deciding what counts as a state or whether or not to list dependencies is OR. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 13:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Equador

How come Equador hasn't got a higher rating? I thought it was one of the most free countries in the world, giving asylum to Julian Assange and all that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.198.13 (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We have to wait 5 years in Britain. It's not a big deal. You can't change Parliament every 1 year of so. Johnxsmith (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

@213.100.198.13 - You should use the link in the External Links section and read about the criteria used to assemble the list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Russia and China at the same Level?

This article and index is just a joke china is guided by communists and has not any elections and chooses its president , russia has election and the putin party even lost some % in the recent election. How can they come and set china and russia at the same level? This democracy index is a joke and probably a political tool.

America is run by two parties since 100 years and they give them the highest ranking too--Quandapanda (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

- belarus has also the same level like russia i forgot to mention, lukaschenko rules belarus now much longer than putin.--Quandapanda (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the Demorcracy Index, but a place to discuss improving the article. Please don't post general comments and and opinions. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

@Quandapanda, perhaps you can reflect this Russia-Chinese parity in the Russia or Putin articles. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this

Population density? Jiawhein (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC) →no.83.10.15.48 (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand on par with Saudi Arabia?

are there more obvious errors?83.10.15.48 (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to the map, they are not "on a par". Australia and New Zealand are colored dark green, "full democracies" at 9.00 - 10.00, along with Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland, while Saudi Arabia is colored dark red, "authoritarian regimes" at 0.00 - 1.99. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone please fix the colors here

I would if I knew how. On my screen no country is a "perfect democracy" (that may be) and yellow doesn't exist. I'm sure this is an error. Pick some different colors instead of extremely similiar greens. 79.136.64.95 (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed it by reverting changes today to commons:File:Democracy Index 2012 green and red.svg. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

By country?

I expected this article to show the ranking by country, as it has in the past, and as it still does in some other languages. The lack lessens the article. Why has this been removed? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a list by country as part of List of freedom indices. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a "by country" list in the article until 22 August 2012. The list was removed due to a "copyright issue" at 7:57 on 22 August 2012. The list was restored and then removed again several times from August to December 2012. I added a new country list at 8:34 on 27 March 2013. My change was reverted at 11:02 later that same day due to copyright concerns. There is a long discussion of this under "Possible copyvio" on the talk page archive. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Update information

Please somebody update the information according to the 2014 calculations! thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.50.155.72 (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the UK a democracy?

Is it that there is something wrong with the index? United Kingdom is legally a unitary constitutional monarchy, ie, a monarchy where the powers of the monarch is limited but it IS a monarchy nevertheless. Then why is it listed in this article as a FULL DEMOCRACY? What criteria defines a full democracy and a constitutional monarchy (flawed democracy). I can understand the UK being a free country (Freedom Map-Wikipedia) but how come democracy? Also many nations which are legally FULL DEMOCRACIES are listed here as FLAWED DEMOCRACY. Why?? How come monarchies like Netherlands, Canada, Japan and UK be listed above democracies like USA(one of the first democracies), France and India (India, the world's biggest democracy being cited as flawed democracy)? Also Bhutan (Monarchy) and Pakistan (fundamentalist quasi-republic) are above Russia (cited as authoritarian) I doubt it. 85.154.87.47 (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

List of freedom indices has indices by other sources. As the article says, it simply lists a democracy index [2] by a specific source, the Economist Intelligence Unit. They try to estimate how democratic a country really is in practice and not what the official laws say. Lots of undemocratic countries have democratic sounding laws which are ignored or not efficiently enforced. Lots of constitutional monarchies have undemocratic sounding laws which are ceremonial without real-world implications. Some constitutions say the monarch acts "on the advice of the Cabinet" or something like that, which in practice is interpreted to mean that in political matters the monarch does whatever the democractically elected politicians tell him/her to do, for example sign laws and appoint cabinet members. I don't know whether the source gives public arguments about individual countries but see Human rights in the United States and Censorship in the United States for some things others have expressed concern about. The latter says "Analysts from Reporters Without Borders rank the United States 46th in the world in terms in their Press Freedom Index, updated for 2014." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

China Flawed Democracy?

China has been rated Authoritarian on this Index in the past and should remain so. Why does this 2014 index now say they are a flawed Democracy?

Did you mean the Republic of China? That's Taiwan. STSC (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two countries that use the name "China". The "Republic of China" is the one base on the island of Taiwan with Taipei as its capital city. (Rank #35 in this list) While the "People's Republic of China" is the one on the mainland with its capital at Beijing. (Rank #144) Mediatech492 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry one of those People's Republic of China versus Republic of China things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.155.131.72 (talk)

The source says Taiwan and our own article is called Taiwan so is there any reason for the article to say Republic of China instead of Taiwan? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably it's because the flag is the ROC's flag; anyway I'll change it to the common name Taiwan to avoid confusion with the PRC. STSC (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Corsica and Sardinia are mixed up

The colors need to be inverted so that they match mainland France and mainland Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.218.4.2 (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Mexico should be a hybrid regime

Mexico should be listed as hybrid regime, in Mexico the army is on the streets in 31 of the 32 entities, and in the other one (Mexico City), there is secret police on the streets.

It's not our decision. The article just reports the score in the 2014 Democracy Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Explanation for countries excluded from the list

I am working on a series of lists/infographics, to include the top Muslim countries by percentage of country's total population. I have been able to add a Democracy Index score to all of the countries on the list, except for Western Sahara, Mayotte, Somalia, and the Maldives. All but Somalia have populations so small that I didn't really mind excluding them from the list, but Somalia is a different story for a number of different reasons. I am assuming it wasn't included because the source did not include it, but does the source at least provide some sort of explanation for it? I could certainly make some guesses and, in fact, the reason(s) may be obvious to most, but I'd really rather not make assumptions. If "The Economist" does include a reason for the exclusion, could you add it to this article? Emerald Evergreen 17:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa Beck (talk • contribs)

@Lisa Beck: The source "Democracy Index 2014" has no mention of Somalia. There are no maps and it's just omitted from the list and not mentioned anywhere in the 58-page pdf file. It starts: "The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index provides a snapshot of the state of democracy worldwide for 165 independent states and two territories—this covers almost the entire population of the world and the vast majority of the world’s states (micro states are excluded)." Somalia is also omitted without mention in the 2012 version. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A more accurate Democracy Index

I do not completely agree with the facts pertaining to the DI of the 167 countries in question, so I created my own table, tweaking some of the data, such as which countries were ranked in which slots and the score and category. Although I am no scholar and did not calculate or run trials of any of this information, I feel like my rearranging of this data should give a somewhat clearer statement about the nature of each country's ruling system. For example, some rearrangements I made were bumping countries like Belgium, France, and Italy up to the 'Full Democracy' category, the United States down to 'Flawed Democracy,' and Russia from 'Authoritarian Regime' to the lower end of 'Hybrid Regime,' among others. Again, this may not be completely accurate, but it is what makes sense to me and many others, presumably. I also apologize for the lack of organization of the data presented.

Rank: Country: Score: Category: 1 Norway 9.93 Full democracy 2 Sweden 9.73 Full democracy 3 Iceland 9.58 Full democracy 4 New Zealand 9.35 Full democracy 5 Denmark 9.26 Full democracy 6 Canada 9.11 Full democracy 7 Finland 9.09 Full democracy 8 Switzerland 9.03 Full democracy 9 Australia 9.01 Full democracy 10 Netherlands 8.92 Full democracy 11 Belgium 8.88 Full democracy 12 Ireland 8.80 Full democracy 13 Germany 8.72 Full democracy 14 Austria 8.64 Full democracy 15 United Kingdom 8.55 Full democracy 16 Luxembourg 8.35 Full democracy 17 Malta 8.22 Full democracy 18 Japan 8.17 Full democracy 19 South Korea 8.11 Full democracy 20 Mauritius 8.08 Full democracy 21 France 8.06 Full democracy 22 Italy 8.05 Full democracy 23 Uruguay 8.04 Full democracy 24 Costa Rica 8.03 Full democracy 25 Czech Republic 7.95 Flawed democracy 26 Poland 7.94 Flawed democracy 27 Estonia 7.93 Flawed democracy 28 India 7.87 Flawed democracy 29 Botswana 7.85 Flawed democracy 30 Spain 7.85 Flawed democracy 31 South Africa 7.81 Flawed democracy 32 Chile 7.80 Flawed democracy 33 Portugal 7.79 Flawed democracy 34 Cape Verde 7.74 Flawed democracy 35 United States 7.65 Flawed democracy 36 Taiwan 7.63 Flawed democracy 37 Israel 7.57 Flawed democracy 38 Slovenia 7.55 Flawed democracy 39 Lithuania 7.50 Flawed democracy 40 Latvia 7.48 Flawed democracy 41 Greece 7.45 Flawed democracy 42 Jamaica 7.40 Flawed democracy 43 Slovakia 7.39 Flawed democracy 44 Cyprus 7.38 Flawed democracy 45 Brazil 7.35 Flawed democracy 46 Timor-Leste 7.24 Flawed democracy 47 Panama 7.08 Flawed democracy 48 Trinidad & Tobago 6.99 Flawed democracy 49 Indonesia 6.95 Flawed democracy 50 Croatia 6.93 Flawed democracy 51 Hungary 6.90 Flawed democracy 52 Argentina 6.84 Flawed democracy 53 Suriname 6.77 Flawed democracy 53 Philippines 6.77 Flawed democracy 55 Bulgaria 6.73 Flawed democracy 56 Serbia 6.71 Flawed democracy 57 Romania 6.68 Flawed democracy 57 Mexico 6.68 Flawed democracy 59 Dominican Republic 6.67 Flawed democracy 60 Lesotho 6.66 Flawed democracy 61 Mongolia 6.62 Flawed democracy 62 Colombia 6.55 Flawed democracy 63 Peru 6.54 Flawed democracy 64 El Salvador 6.53 Flawed democracy 65 Malaysia 6.49 Flawed democracy 66 Hong Kong 6.46 Flawed democracy 67 Zambia 6.39 Flawed democracy 68 Ghana 6.33 Flawed democracy 69 Moldova 6.32 Flawed democracy 70 Tunisia 6.31 Flawed democracy 71 Paraguay 6.26 Flawed democracy 72 Macedonia 6.25 Flawed democracy 73 Namibia 6.24 Flawed democracy 74 Senegal 6.15 Flawed democracy 75 Papua New Guinea 6.03 Flawed democracy 76 Singapore 6.03 Flawed democracy 77 Montenegro 5.94 Hybrid regime 78 Guyana 5.91 Hybrid regime 79 Ecuador 5.87 Hybrid regime 80 Honduras 5.84 Hybrid regime 81 Georgia 5.82 Hybrid regime 82 Guatemala 5.81 Hybrid regime 83 Bolivia 5.79 Hybrid regime 83 Mali 5.79 Hybrid regime 85 Bangladesh 5.78 Hybrid regime 86 Tanzania 5.77 Hybrid regime 87 Sri Lanka 5.69 Hybrid regime 88 Albania 5.67 Hybrid regime 89 Malawi 5.66 Hybrid regime 90 Benin 5.65 Hybrid regime 91 Fiji 5.61 Hybrid regime 92 Ukraine 5.42 Hybrid regime 93 Thailand 5.39 Hybrid regime 94 Nicaragua 5.32 Hybrid regime 95 Kyrgyzstan 5.24 Hybrid regime 96 Uganda 5.22 Hybrid regime 97 Kenya 5.13 Hybrid regime 98 Turkey 5.12 Hybrid regime 98 Lebanon 5.12 Hybrid regime 100 Venezuela 5.07 Hybrid regime 101 Liberia 4.95 Hybrid regime 102 Bhutan 4.87 Hybrid regime 103 Bosnia & Herzegovina 4.78 Hybrid regime 103 Cambodia 4.78 Hybrid regime 105 Nepal 4.77 Hybrid regime 106 Palestinian Authority 4.72 Hybrid regime 107 Mozambique 4.66 Hybrid regime 108 Pakistan 4.64 Hybrid regime 109 Sierra Leone 4.56 Hybrid regime 110 Madagascar 4.42 Hybrid regime 111 Iraq 4.23 Hybrid regime 112 Mauritania 4.17 Hybrid regime 113 Armenia 4.13 Hybrid regime 114 Burkina Faso 4.09 Hybrid regime 115 Russia 4.02 Hybrid regime 116 Egypt 4.00 Authoritarian regime 117 Niger 3.83 Authoritarian regime 118 Morocco 3.82 Authoritarian regime 119 Haiti 3.80 Authoritarian regime 120 Libya 3.78 Authoritarian regime 121 Algeria 3.76 Authoritarian regime 121 Jordan 3.76 Authoritarian regime 121 Gabon 3.76 Authoritarian regime 124 Nigeria 3.72 Authoritarian regime 125 Nigeria 3.69 Authoritarian regime 126 Cuba 3.53 Authoritarian regime 127 Côte d'Ivoire 3.52 Authoritarian regime 127 Belarus 3.52 Authoritarian regime 129 Comoros 3.45 Authoritarian regime 130 Togo 3.41 Authoritarian regime 131 Vietnam 3.41 Authoritarian regime 132 Cameroon 3.39 Authoritarian regime 133 Angola 3.35 Authoritarian regime 134 Burundi 3.33 Authoritarian regime 135 Rwanda 3.25 Authoritarian regime 136 Qatar 3.18 Authoritarian regime 137 Kazakhstan 3.17 Authoritarian regime 138 Kuwait 3.16 Authoritarian regime 139 Oman 3.15 Authoritarian regime 140 Swaziland 3.09 Authoritarian regime 141 Burma 3.05 Authoritarian regime 141 The Gambia 3.05 Authoritarian regime 143 Guinea 3.01 Authoritarian regime 144 China 3.00 Authoritarian regime 145 Djibouti 2.99 Authoritarian regime 146 Republic of the Congo 2.89 Authoritarian regime 147 Bahrain 2.87 Authoritarian regime 148 Azerbaijan 2.83 Authoritarian regime 149 Yemen 2.79 Authoritarian regime 150 Zimbabwe 2.78 Authoritarian regime 151 Afghanistan 2.77 Authoritarian regime 152 United Arab Emirates 2.64 Authoritarian regime 153 Sudan 2.54 Authoritarian regime 154 Uzbekistan 2.45 Authoritarian regime 155 Eritrea 2.44 Authoritarian regime 156 Tajikistan 2.37 Authoritarian regime 157 Laos 2.21 Authoritarian regime 158 Iran 1.98 Authoritarian regime 159 Guinea-Bissau 1.93 Authoritarian regime 160 Turkmenistan 1.83 Authoritarian regime 161 Saudi Arabia 1.82 Authoritarian regime 162 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1.75 Authoritarian regime 163 Syria 1.74 Authoritarian regime 164 Equatorial Guinea 1.66 Authoritarian regime 165 Chad 1.50 Authoritarian regime 166 Central African Republic 1.49 Authoritarian regime 167 North Korea 1.08 Authoritarian regime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.24.244 (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Russia?

Can it be that the Index is faulty? According to the current Index Pakistan, a country in which the Sharia is the Base of Law and Politics, is more democratic than Russia. I actually doubt it.--95.114.10.42 (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That's what the source says. It is not Wikipedia that has come up with the scores. Bevo74 (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan is actually a Pseudo-Democarcy, that is ruled by a quasi-feudalistic Oligarchy of Landowner Clans and Islamic Fundamentalists. I just ask myself how this State can be semi-democractic?--77.2.177.111 (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan has an overall score of 4.57 which is in the lower part of hybrid regimes. I don't know much about Pakistan but below are all the scores from "Democracy Index 2012" [3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Rank	Overall score	Electoral process and pluralism	Functioning of government	Political participation	Political culture	Civil liberties
108	4.57	5.58	5.36	2.22	4.38	5.29

Pakistan can be actually classified as an authoritiarian regime with totalitarian tendencies.--95.114.36.218 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As previously noted, Wikipedia does not make the classifications listed here. This article only reports the classifications as made by the Economist Intelligence Unit using their stated calculation mechanism. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is the presence of Sharia law in its legal system supposed to be the end all be all here? North Korea has no Sharia law in its legal system either, would you say its more democratic than Pakistan?108.131.13.72 (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Color code legend

While the meanings of the various colors used in the maps and tables may seem obvious to most or all, it is still appropriate to include in the body of the text a legend defining each color. PhuDoi1 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section needed

It's really silly that Pakistan is well above Russia. I'm not here to defend Russia, but there is an obvious bias in this list made by the Economist, therefor a "criticism" section should be added. Besides: That Israel is ranked so highly - despite all human rights violations - is also very debetable. -- 194.166.192.179 (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If you can find reputable sources offering objective criticism of the Democracy Index, feel free to bring them up. Otherwise, be reminded that this Talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article, not to air personal views on the content of the article (see these Wikipedia guidelines for more info). Jumpythehat (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Democracy Index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110310200039/http://www.directdemocracyuk.com:80/blog/2010/12/democracy-index-2010.html to http://www.directdemocracyuk.com/blog/2010/12/democracy-index-2010.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The report is widely cited in the international press as well as in peer reviewed academic journals

In exactly one paper. Please add other quotes.Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Map for 2015

Please put on the prelude section a new democracy index scaled map for 2015 to caught up with the current situation or I might change the title of the current map wherever it applies or not. Please tell me or modify the map if I make a mistake. Economist intelligent unit website: http://www.eiu.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertpda (talk • contribs) 09:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

North America vs. Latin America?

According the Wikipedias own article on "North America", it includes certain countries listed under the Caribbean and Latin American umbrellas, in the regional comparison in this article.

I am curious as to the reasoning behind this? Actually clicking on "North America" in the comparison brings forward that aforementioned article, which wholly disputes the exclusions of an aggressively high amount of countries, notably ones such as Mexico and Cuba, who have been listed under the under regions.

While I am not usually one for conjecture, it seems very convenient that this "North America" region is only comprised of two countries, and is such frankly gifted the prize that is being #1 overall in this comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.90.151.187 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

As the article clearly says, the index is made by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The regions are simply copied from the linked references like [4]. I don't know how the Economist Intelligence Unit chose the regions but note they are British and not American. If Latin America had been included in North America and the other regions were unchanged then the top region would have been Western Europe which is home to the Economist Intelligence Unit. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand how the number are copied from the EIU, but wouldn't it make sense to at least have the regions standardized? I am assuming the information in the continental pages on Wikipedia is correct, making the ones from EIU incorrect. At the very least there seems to be some kind of inconsistency at play here, given how countries are attributed to different regions. I still maintain, regardless of whether or not EIU is HQ'ed in Europe, that it seems rather deceptive to only include two countries in the "North American" region, when it is an objective fact that there are more countries in that region, as can be seen right here on Wikipedia. 83.90.151.187 (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

They are called regions by EIU. Our article just reports what EIU said, using the same terms. A region could be almost anything decided by the author of a text. None of the EIU regions correspond to common definitons of continents. I see no reason to distort what EIU wrote and change their regions to continents. Everything including the name, number of countries and average score for each region is taken directly from the EIU references so there would also be some work bordering on original research to change everything to continents. If we change North America then why should we stop there? By the way, their North America region does match one of the definitions in North America#Extent. I'm Danish and in the Western Europe region in case you wonder. I have no personal interest in moving North America above Western Europe. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The Democracy Index needs refinement

The following comment was entered at the top of the article by Hardtruths (talk, contribs) at 17:18 on 1 August 2014‎ and quickly reverted. I'm entering it here for the record. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Democracy Index needs refinement. For example, the rule of law should be given more weight. Knowing Canada and how Anglosaxon countries function, the US is no longer in this category, it makes no sense to place Spain at the same level as the UK, no matter how many more "democratic" laws Spain may have on its books. Laws in Spain are not applied anywhere near the rigor of the UK.

Is direct democracy factored into this either? Representatives would also need to reflect some will of the people to be democratic (keeping to the election manifesto) or simply whether referendums are carried out. I agree that the rule of law could be an issue, policies need to be in action not just law. but how can you empirically separate this from 'bad policies' that are voted for, or e.g. reduction of police funding that might be part of the elected party's manifesto and therefore a fault of the electorate's decisions?

The democracy index is misleading and needs a new category (Perfect democracy perhaps). It implies a full democracy is the highest level of democracy. For example the United Kingdom and the USA are actually flawed democracies (in my opinion), in that corporations and their individual owners control much of the media who feed the public their views on their particular favourite candidate to win. Additionally to become a senator or president (in the case of the US), you need finance. If individuals are segregated from rising to power then cultural bubbles are created with in the power structures. In the UK, the 2015 election showed how 1 million people (of 65 million) voted for the green party and yet the green party only attained 1 parliamentary seat out of 650. These are very flawed democracies.

(of course the Democracy index is created primarily to service business with information about countries so they know how best to exploit them and protect their assets. Maybe I'm being cynical). Mrgauntlett (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia and report what reliable sources say. The categories and scores in Democracy Index are copied directly from the index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit. It's not our job to make up our own index and assign scores based on opinions of editors. I personally prefer proportional representation like my own country has but that doesn't mean I can claim in articles that it's "more democratic" than single-member districts. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right. The first line of the article says it's the work of the Economist Intelligence Unit. Their method for compiling this information is also clearly described and seems quite opaque. It is made clear that these are the opinions of unnamed experts etc. When I read the article I missed those vital points. The title gives an illusion of weight, but, as I mentioned above, their appraisal operates within their frame work of what democracy currently is. I suppose I could start a criticism section of the Democracy index. Mrgauntlett (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"Democracy Index" is the official name by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Democracy Index#See also links to List of freedom indices. The bottom of the article displays {{Politics country lists}} (not shown in all browsers) and Category:International rankings. This is just one ranking by one source. Criticism would have to be based on published reliable sources speaking specifically about the Democracy Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Colors used in table

The colors used are green for democracy and red for more authoritarian regimes, which in my view is a biased use of colors in violation of WP:NPOV. It is well known that in most cultures green signals good and red signals bad, yet it is not Wikipedia's purpose to proclaim democracy as preferable to other forms of governance. I appreciate your thoughts; if there are no serious objections, I will change the colors to other, more neutral hues later. WallyWyatt [contact] 14:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Disagreed with this. While Wikipedia may not want a POV the EIU Democracy Index clearly promotes and advocates democracy, and as stated many times in the talk page, this article is about that index and not the opinions of the article editors. The 2016 index uses a map very similar to the ones used in this article.2606:6000:6787:CF00:98D8:18D9:DBFD:BDB0 (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It is much easier to read with red and green. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Excluded countries

Could a section be added detailing who are the ~30 excluded countries/states and why they have been excluded? (especially since they are part of the UN) Seems like a relevant mystery 77.125.22.252 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's mostly tiny countries at the bottom of List of countries and dependencies by population. I guess people haven't bothered to compile enough data about them but we would need a source to say why they are omitted. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This article only lists the information as given in the Economist Intelligence Unit's annual report. You would need to refer to that document for such information. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Other reliable sources mentioning exclusion of countries could also work if we make it clear whether it's only speculation. We just shouldn't make our own speculation. Even a simple list of excluded UN members would probably be too much for us if no sources have mentioned it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Did someone add the USA in twice?

The text says that the USA was downgraded to "flawed democracy" and it's there under spot #35. But it looks like someone added in an extra line at the top, putting the USA on spot #0, with a perfect 10 for everything which seems unlikely. I don't usually edit wikipedia so I'm not sure what to do about this.124.149.156.177 (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like someone took exception to the fact that the 2016 report downgraded the United States to "Flawed Democracy", and they vandalized the article with their own wishful thinking. It has now been corrected. The United States score of 7.98 is correct for the the 2016 report. Mediatech492 (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

sabotage of list - Ethiopia shown as #1

Someone has sabotaged this page to make Ethiopia #1 on the list? Looks like it was swapped with Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.171.152 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted it and warned the vandal. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

democracy status

US is not a "full democracy", but a flawed one: for a presidential Republic, the presidential electoral sistem is indirect, and fewer votes wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.53.248.165 (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

As the article clearly says, it shows the classifications made by the Economist Intelligence Unit, not opinions of Wikipedia editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This claim has, surprisingly enough, become reality. 194.157.51.177 (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I just read that the 2016 report rates the United States a flawed democracy. We need updates. Any recommended sources? Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The United States is present twice in the list of countries, as rank 0 and as rank 35. Looks very much like an error. It also does not have a top score in all categories, as suggested by its rank 0 entry. 85.191.92.133 (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is an article from left wing Salon being used as a reference for the section detailing America’s slip to “flawed democracy?” The article is opinion and entirely blames Donald Trump for the slide when it is expressly mentioned in the other articles that Donald Trump was a consequence and not the cause.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:D88B:547A:F626:EAB (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

EIU POV

At present, the article does not contain criticisms of the index. The Economist and its associated outlets and businesses have a well known bias in international affairs that is not really a matter of debate. It represents the forces of unadulterated, anti-identity, market, globalized liberalism. That orientation cannot fail to influence the objectivity of the Democracy Index, so the absence of a section containing criticisms of the index makes this article read as if this is the final word in indexes of the level of freedom in countries. That Armenia is less democratic than Cambodia will probably shock both Armenians and Cambodians, but that is just one example/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.133 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The criteria they use is bizarre. Canadians have no say in appointing their prime minister, they are never allowed any plebiscites or referenda, and their Senators for their upper house are neither appointed by, nor can be removed by, the public. But Canada is somehow still considered more democratic than America. Go figure.Edward Carson (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Edward Carson: The Canadian prime minister is appointed based on confidence of the parliament, a common feature of parliamentary democracies. And the Canadian Senate is more symbolic and weaker than other legislative chambers like US Senate or Australian Senate. ← As detailed in the reports, the actual substance of democracy is weighed, not just formal structures. The Democracy Index had clear reasons to score and rank Canada that way, even if you may not agree.2600:1012:B015:FE60:F460:B89D:DB59:8AAA (talk) 20:41, 9Disclaimers February 2018 (UTC)

@ he who does not wish to be identified: to talk about an allegation is not to prove it wrong. The Canadian prime minister is appointed based on blah blah... Yes, quite true, yet still the voters have no input. “The Canadian senate is more symbolic…” What does that even mean? “…and weaker than other legislative chambers…” But still strong enough to deny all legislation introduced by the prime minister. “The Democracy Index had clear reasons to score and rank Canada that way…” I have no doubt, but are the reasons based on objective facts, or subjective preferences?Edward Carson (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing the article, not arguing about the nature of Canadian politics. The results of the Democracy Index are the result of of the process as defined by the Economist Group. This article only presents their finding. If you want to read the full report you can download it from the Economist Group's website. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a very strict 2-party system established in the US, not very plural. You should also take a look at your presidential election system. Your president is not elected directly by the voters but by the elected Electoral College, a system that allows a candidate with the most "popular" votes to lose the election. I would always prefer the Canadian model over that in the States. And of course do voters have an input: largest faction in the parliament usually gets the PM, many other democracies in the world do it the same way. --2A02:908:1461:ACC0:F48B:11BC:8D3F:C2D0 (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Democracy index map color inconsistency

The map was better before. Now Light green > Dark green but Light blue < Dark blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.183.223 (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added a new map with colors according to Wikipedia Conventions. --DEGA8 (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

South Korea

So I just noticed, the rounded score of South Korea is 8.00, which by the rules below, means it should be in the "full" category. I haven't made any changes im case that was a rounded up score.ZdrytchX (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed it too. In the map from the source, it has the colours of 7-7.99 even though it has 8.00. It is also listed under flawed in the source. The user-made wikipedia map gave it the 8-8.99 colour though. It is probably rounding, the true average is 7.998, although the 5 categories might have rounding too. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The rules were changed in 2017 so we need an update. The official 2017 report says:

The index values are used to place countries within one of four types of regime:
1. Full democracies: scores greater than 8
2. Flawed democracies: scores greater than 6, and less than or equal to 8
3. Hybrid regimes: scores greater than 4, and less than or equal to 6
4. Authoritarian regimes: scores less than or equal to 4

In 2016 it said "Flawed democracies: score of 6 to 7.9". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If there was a mistake, it was made by EIU. This page only presents the report as prepared by EIU; Wikipedia has no mandate to correct (perceived) errors in the report. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no error in the report. It is us who don't describe the 2017 report correctly. We need to update the rules to match EIU's change from 2016 to 2017. It follows from the official 2017 report that Flawed democracies is 6.01 to 8.00. Our map legend says 6.00 to 7.99. We copied that from commons:File:EIU Democracy Index 2017.svg by DEGA8. The official report is consistent with its own rules when it groups South Korea as a flawed democracy with 8.00. Our map color for South Korea should be changed. EIU has no map. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

EIU does have a map at https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index which has flawed as 6.0-7.99. South Korea is coloured as 7.0-7.99 even though it has 8.00. Interesting that the report and the map are slightly different. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

They apparently forgot to update the map legend when the rules changed in 2017. I have now told them with their contact form. I usually get no reply or no correction when I inform organizations of website errors but it sometimes works. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A week later I got a reply saying: "Thank you for your comments. These have been forward to our editorial team and any errors will be fixed." But as usual, it wasn't fixed. They have now published a new map for 2018 and it still has the same wrong legend. South Korea still has score 8.00 and is correctly listed as flawed democracy in both report and map color, but would have been full democracy if the wrong map legend was followed. The rule inside the 2018 report is unchanged from 2017: "2. Flawed democracies: scores greater than 6, and less than or equal to 8". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only present the report as provided by the EIU. We have no authority here to make changes to their report if they do not see fit to do so. It is the same principle that Wikipedia cannot change the wording of the US Constitution, or the King James Bible. We can present the source, and comment on it, but we have no mandate to make changes to it. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that EIU has published two contradictory rules. One in their web page map legend says 8.00 is a full democracy. The other in the actual PDF report says it's a flawed democracy. South Korea has score 8.00 so we have to pick one of the rules, or mention both of them. I think we should consistently follow the actual report, maybe with a footnote about their contradicting map legend. We currently follow the report in the list classification of South Korea as a flawed democracy, but we follow the EIU map legend in our own map legend, and in the full democracy color for South Korea in File:EIU Democracy Index 2017.svg. I don't have software to edit the map. Somebody will hopefully make a 2018 map soon but it will have the same issue of how to color South Korea. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, somebody changed South Korea to full democracy 30 December.[5] That means we consistently follow the EIU map legend on the web page and consistently contradict the actual report. I think we should do the opposite. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Either way we do not have the mandate to second guess the EIU sources. Until EIU provides a correction or further update, the correct thing for us to to do is leave things as they are. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Why do you prefer to follow the map legend on the EIU web page about the report instead of following the actual EIU report? Even the map color of South Korea on the EIU web page follows the report and doesn't follow the map legend on the same image. The report both lists South Korea as flawed democracy and states rules where it's a flawed democracy. That means three out of four EIU statements indicate that South Korea is a flawed democracy. Why should we follow the fourth when it isn't even part of the report? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Index by region

Can someone list what countries are included in each region (as specified at the bottom of the article)? --Numberguy6 (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Each region in the chart is linked to the article that gives full geographic details. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Several of the articles linked at Democracy Index#Democracy Index by region say there are different definitions. The official EIU report lists the countries in each region. Region lists of 167 countries may be a bit much for this article but we could make a region column in the main country table. The table is sortable so it would also enable readers to sort by region. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Democracy Index → The EIU Democracy Index – This article is not a general one about the concept of a "Democracy Index" and a description of various constructions. Instead it is about one specific "Democracy Index" and thus this should be made explicitly clear in the article title (not just the lede). Note that this is how the EIU themselves refer to their index - cf. the page title on this page: "EIU Democracy Index 2018 - World Democracy Report" Oska (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Seems sensible to me. -- Begoon 09:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "Democracy Index" has capital "I" to show it's a proper name. A general article would be called "Democracy index". Almost none of the many indexes in Category:International rankings have the publisher in the title. A Google search indicates to me that "Democracy Index" is the common name, especially when not referring to a specific year. The context mentions "EIU" or "Economist Intelligence Unit" somewhere but that's what the lead is for. "EIU Democracy Index 2018 - World Democracy Report" is only the html title (often displayed on a browser tab) on this page (Oska's link). The heading is "Democracy Index 2018" and it starts "The eleventh edition of the Democracy Index reveals ...". The title of the actual 2018 report is "Democracy Index 2018: Me too? Political participation, protest and democracy". Earlier years have similar titles without "EIU". If we do include EIU then move to "EIU Democracy Index" without "The". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I note your point about the capitalisation of the second word but that is a distinction that may be lost on the reader, especially when it is a common practice to capitalise all words in a title. Oska (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The extraneous WP:THE doesn't seem supportable. -- Netoholic @ 14:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Very happy to drop the 'The'. Is it possible for me to edit the proposal to do so or does the process just roll inexorably forward with the submitted wording now? Oska (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Proposal presumes there are other democracy indexes that are somehow being denied proper coverage, but does not identify them. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not presume that there are other democracy indexes. I was illustrating my point that the current title would be more appropriate for a discussion of a general concept, not that a variety of implementations necessarily exist. Oska (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Precisely my point. You've based your proposal on an ephemeral "What if", not demonstrable fact. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a "What if" and we don't need to talk about 'demonstrable facts'. We're getting a long way away from the point of my proposal which is that authorship of the index should be attributed in the article title. What objection do you have to that attribution? Oska (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

We almost never attribute authorship in the title except in parentheses to disambiguate from other existing articles. The same applies to books, songs, paintings, speeches and so on. The article title is the name of the subject. The lead can name the author. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Abkhazia

Where is Abkhasia? There is Taiwan but not Abkhazia--Kaiyr (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The lead says: "The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a UK-based company." We simply copy it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggested Correction: Democracy Index Map

The accompanying map shows Haida Gwaii as part of American territory. However, Haida Gwaii is under Canadian, not American, annexation and should therefore be shown as part of Canadian territory in order to ensure accuracy. Does anyone know how can this be fixed? Shoutsofvictory (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

commons:File:Democracy Index 2018.png was made by WeifengYang. You are right that Haida Gwaii should be the color of Canada. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2019

Country with Rank 165 in table should read as "Democratic Republic of Congo" instead of "Democratic Republic of the Congo" Vij Bheenick (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Our article on the country is currently titled Democratic Republic of the Congo. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

2019 Index

Has the 2019 democracy index been published yet? If so, could someone post it to the article page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Znelson2 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The EIU website still has the 2018 report posted. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Is the report free from the start? Or is it behind a paywal the first months? Sprechender Kopf (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The 2019 index is available now see here. It was quite comlicated to extract the table from the pdf. Unfortunately I dont have the time to create a Wikitable out of it. But this is a c&p out of my OpenOfficeCalc-Table. Maybe someone has a use for it. Sprechender Kopf (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

c&p

Overall score Rank Electoral process Functioning of goverment politival participation political culture civil liberties Norway 9.87 1 10 9.64 10 10 9.71 Iceland 9.58 2 10 9.29 8.89 10 9.71 Sweden 9.39 3 9.58 9.64 8.33 10 9.41 New Zealand 9.26 4 10 9.29 8.89 8.13 10 Finland 9.25 5 10 8.93 8.89 8.75 9.71 Ireland 9.24 6 10 7.86 8.33 10 10 Denmark 9.22 7= 10 9.29 8.33 9.38 9.12 Canada 9.22 7= 9.58 9.64 7.78 9.38 9.71 Australia 9.09 9 10 8.93 7.78 8.75 10 Switzerland 9.03 10 9.58 9.29 7.78 9.38 9.12 Netherlands 9.01 11 9.58 9.29 8.33 8.75 9.12 Luxembourg 8.81 12 10 8.93 6.67 8.75 9.71 Germany 8.68 13 9.58 8.57 8.33 7.5 9.41 United Kingdom 8.52 14 9.58 7.5 8.89 7.5 9.12 Uruguay 8.38 15 10 8.57 6.11 7.5 9.71 Austria 8.29 16= 9.58 7.86 8.33 6.88 8.82 Spain 8.29 16= 9.58 7.14 7.78 8.13 8.82 Mauritius 8.22 18 9.17 8.21 5.56 8.75 9.41 Costa Rica 8.13 19 9.58 7.5 6.67 7.5 9.41 France 8.12 20 9.58 7.86 7.78 6.88 8.53 Chile 8.08 21 9.58 8.57 5 8.13 9.12 Portugal 8.03 22 9.58 7.86 6.11 7.5 9.12 South Korea 8 23 9.17 7.86 7.22 7.5 8.24 Japan 7.99 24 8.75 8.21 6.67 7.5 8.82 United States of America 7.96 25 9.17 7.14 7.78 7.5 8.24 Malta 7.95 26 9.17 7.5 6.11 8.13 8.82 Estonia 7.9 27 9.58 7.86 6.67 6.88 8.53 Israel 7.86 28 9.17 7.86 8.89 7.5 5.88 Botswana 7.81 29 9.17 7.14 6.11 7.5 9.12 Cabo Verde 7.78 30 9.17 7.36 6.67 6.88 8.82 Taiwan 7.73 31 9.58 8.21 6.11 5.63 9.12 Czech Republic 7.69 32 9.58 6.79 6.67 6.88 8.53 Belgium 7.64 33 9.58 8.21 5 6.88 8.53 Cyprus 7.59 34 9.17 6.43 6.67 6.88 8.82 Italy 7.52 35 9.58 6.07 7.78 6.25 7.94 Slovenia 7.5 36= 9.58 6.79 6.67 6.25 8.24 Lithuania 7.5 36= 9.58 6.43 6.11 6.25 9.12 Latvia 7.49 38 9.58 6.07 6.11 6.88 8.82 Greece 7.43 39 9.58 4.86 6.67 7.5 8.53 South Africa 7.24 40 7.42 7.5 8.33 5 7.94 Timor-Leste 7.19 41 9.58 6.29 5.56 6.88 7.65 Slovakia 7.17 42 9.58 7.14 5.56 5.63 7.94 Malaysia 7.16 43= 9.17 7.86 6.67 6.25 5.88 Trinidad and Tobago 7.16 43= 9.58 7.14 6.11 5.63 7.35 Colombia 7.13 45 9.17 6.79 5.56 5.63 8.53 Panama 7.05 46 9.58 6.07 6.67 5 7.94 Bulgaria 7.03 47 9.17 6.43 7.22 4.38 7.94 Argentina 7.02 48 9.17 5.36 6.11 6.25 8.24 Suriname 6.98 49 9.17 6.43 6.67 5 7.65 Jamaica 6.96 50 8.75 7.14 4.44 6.25 8.24 India 6.9 51 8.67 6.79 6.67 5.63 6.76 Brazil 6.86 52 9.58 5.36 6.11 5 8.24 Tunisia 6.72 53 9.17 5.71 7.22 5.63 5.88 Philippines 6.64 54 9.17 5.36 7.22 4.38 7.06 Ghana 6.63 55= 8.33 5.71 6.67 6.25 6.18 Hungary 6.63 55= 8.75 6.07 5 6.25 7.06 Poland 6.62 57 9.17 6.07 6.11 4.38 7.35 Peru 6.6 58 9.17 5 5.56 5.63 7.65 Croatia 6.57 59 9.17 6.07 5.56 5 7.06 Dominican Republic 6.54 60= 9.17 5.36 6.11 5 7.06 Lesotho 6.54 60= 9.17 4.5 6.67 5.63 6.76 Mongolia 6.5 62 9.17 5.71 5.56 5 7.06 Romania 6.49 63 9.17 5.71 5.56 4.38 7.65 Indonesia 6.48 64 7.92 7.14 6.11 5.63 5.59 Namibia 6.43 65 6.58 5.36 6.67 5.63 7.94 Serbia 6.41 66 8.25 5.36 6.11 5 7.35 Ecuador 6.33 67 8.75 5.36 6.11 4.38 7.06 Thailand 6.32 68 7.42 5.36 6.11 6.25 6.47 Sri Lanka 6.27 69 7 6.07 5.56 6.25 6.47 Paraguay 6.24 70 8.75 5.71 5 4.38 7.35 El Salvador 6.15 71= 9.17 4.64 6.11 3.75 7.06 Guyana 6.15 71= 6.92 5.36 6.11 5 7.35 Mexico 6.09 73 7.83 6.07 7.22 3.13 6.18 Papua New Guinea 6.03 74 6.92 6.07 3.89 5.63 7.65 Hong Kong 6.02 75= 3.58 4.36 6.11 7.5 8.53 Singapore 6.02 75= 3.92 7.86 5 6.25 7.06 North Macedonia 5.97 77 7 5.36 6.67 3.75 7.06 Ukraine 5.9 78 7.42 2.71 6.67 6.25 6.47 Albania 5.89 79 7 5.36 4.44 5 7.65 Bangladesh 5.88 80 7.83 6.07 6.11 4.38 5 Fiji 5.85 81 6.58 5.36 6.11 5.63 5.59 Senegal 5.81 82 6.08 6.07 4.44 6.25 6.18 Moldova 5.75 83 6.58 4.64 6.11 4.38 7.06 Montenegro 5.65 84 5.67 5.36 6.11 4.38 6.76 Madagascar 5.64 85 7.92 3.57 6.11 5.63 5 Armenia 5.54 86 7.5 5.36 6.11 3.13 5.59 Malawi 5.5 87 6.08 4.29 5 6.25 5.88 Liberia 5.45 88 7.42 3.07 5.56 5.63 5.59 Georgia 5.42 89= 7.83 3.21 6.11 4.38 5.59 Honduras 5.42 89= 7.83 4.29 4.44 4.38 6.18 Bhutan 5.3 91 8.75 6.79 2.78 4.38 3.82 Nepal 5.28 92 4.83 5.36 5 5.63 5.59 Guatemala 5.26 93 6.92 4.64 3.89 4.38 6.47 Kenya 5.18 94 3.5 5.71 6.67 5.63 4.41 Tanzania 5.16 95 5.75 5 5 5.63 4.41 Morocco 5.1 96 5.25 4.64 5.56 5.63 4.41 Benin 5.09 97= 4.67 5.71 4.44 5.63 5 Zambia 5.09 97= 4.75 2.93 4.44 6.88 6.47 Uganda 5.02 99 4.33 3.57 4.44 6.88 5.88 Mali 4.92 100 6.42 3.07 3.89 5.63 5.59 Kyrgyz Republic 4.89 101 6.08 2.93 6.67 3.75 5 Bosnia and Hercegovina 4.86 102= 6.17 2.93 5.56 3.75 5.88 Sierra Leone 4.86 102= 6.58 2.86 3.33 6.25 5.29 Bolivia 4.84 104 4.75 3.93 5 3.75 6.76 Haiti 4.57 105 4.75 2.07 3.89 6.25 5.88 Lebanon 4.36 106 3.92 1.5 6.67 5 4.71 Gambia 4.33 107 4 4.29 3.33 5.63 4.41 Pakistan 4.25 108 6.08 5.71 2.22 2.5 4.71 Nigeria 4.12 109 5.17 3.93 3.33 3.75 4.41 Turkey 4.09 110 3.08 5 5 5 2.35 Côte d’Ivoire 4.05 111 4.33 2.86 3.33 5.63 4.12 Burkina Faso 4.04 112 3.92 2.71 4.44 5 4.12 Algeria 4.01 113 3.08 2.86 5 5 4.12 Jordan 3.93 114= 3.58 4.29 3.89 4.38 3.53 Kuwait 3.93 114= 3.58 4.29 3.89 4.38 3.53 Mauritania 3.92 116 3.5 3.57 5 3.13 4.41 Palestine 3.89 117 3.33 0.14 7.78 4.38 3.82 Iraq 3.74 118 5.25 0 6.67 5 1.76 Angola 3.72 119 2.25 2.86 5.56 5 2.94 Mozambique 3.65 120 2.58 2.14 5 5 3.53 Gabon 3.61 121 2.58 2.21 4.44 5 3.82 Myanmar 3.55 122= 3.08 3.93 2.78 5.63 2.35 Nicaragua 3.55 122= 1.25 2.86 3.89 5.63 4.12 Cambodia 3.53 124 0.83 4.64 3.33 5.63 3.24 Ethiopia 3.44 125 0.42 3.57 5.56 5 2.65 Togo 3.3 126 3.17 1.79 3.33 5 3.24 Niger 3.29 127 2.92 1.14 3.33 4.38 4.71 Qatar 3.19 128 0 4.29 2.22 5.63 3.82 Rwanda 3.16 129= 1.42 4.29 2.78 4.38 2.94 Zimbabwe 3.16 129= 0 2.5 4.44 5.63 3.24 Comoros 3.15 131 2.08 2.21 3.89 3.75 3.82 eSwatini 3.14 132= 0.92 2.86 2.78 5.63 3.53 Guinea 3.14 132= 3.5 0.43 4.44 4.38 2.94 Congo (Brazzaville) 3.11 134= 2.17 2.5 3.89 3.75 3.24 Russia 3.11 134= 2.17 1.79 5 2.5 4.12 Vietnam 3.08 136 0 3.21 3.89 5.63 2.65 Egypt 3.06 137= 2.67 3.21 3.33 3.75 2.35 Oman 3.06 137= 0.08 3.93 2.78 4.38 4.12 Kazakhstan 2.94 139 0.5 2.14 4.44 4.38 3.24 Venezuela 2.88 140 0 1.79 5 4.38 3.24 Afghanistan 2.85 141= 3.42 0.64 3.89 2.5 3.82 Cameroon 2.85 141= 1.67 2.5 3.33 4.38 2.35 Cuba 2.84 143 0 3.57 3.33 4.38 2.94 Djibouti 2.77 144 0.42 1.29 3.89 5.63 2.65 United Arab Emirates 2.76 145 0 3.93 2.22 5 2.65 Azerbaijan 2.75 146 0.5 3.21 2.78 3.75 3.53 Sudan 2.7 147 0 1.79 5.56 5 1.18 Guinea-Bissau 2.63 148 4.92 0 2.78 3.13 2.35 Bahrain 2.55 149 0.83 2.71 2.78 4.38 2.06 Belarus 2.48 150 0.92 2 2.78 4.38 2.35 Iran 2.38 151 0 2.86 4.44 3.13 1.47 Eritrea 2.37 152 0 2.14 1.67 6.88 1.18 China 2.26 153 0 4.29 3.33 2.5 1.18 Burundi 2.15 154 0 0.07 3.33 5 2.35 Laos 2.14 155 0 2.86 1.67 5 1.18 Libya 2.02 156 0 0 2.78 4.38 2.94 Uzbekistan 2.01 157 0.08 1.86 2.22 5 0.88 Yemen 1.95 158 0 0 3.89 5 0.88 Saudi Arabia 1.93 159= 0 2.86 2.22 3.13 1.47 Tajikistan 1.93 159= 0.08 0.79 1.67 6.25 0.88 Equatorial Guinea 1.92 161 0 0.43 3.33 4.38 1.47 Turkmenistan 1.72 162 0 0.79 2.22 5 0.59 Chad 1.61 163 0 0 1.67 3.75 2.65 Syria 1.43 164 0 0 2.78 4.38 0 Central African Republic 1.32 165 1.25 0 1.11 1.88 2.35 Democratic Republic of Congo 1.13 166 0 0 1.67 3.13 0.88 North Korea 1.08 167 0 2.5 1.67 1.25 0

Where is the new map as per 2020 data

please update according to 2020 report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4061:2189:A91E:0:0:96A:78AC (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no 2020 report. The newest report ist 2019. Sprechender Kopf (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Fix the index

The index is flawed at its core, I propose that I make (below the original) a "better" version with higher accuracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiggieCheese2 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@BiggieCheese2: This is an index of the Economist Intelligence Unit as stated in the opening sentence. Do not make your own index in Wikipedia. Our content is based on published reliable sources, not opinions or original research of the editors. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

There should be a big banner stating at the top of this talk page that this is about the EUI report and not editors' opinions and anyone editing this article should be required to read it first. How many times has this useless complaint come up now? It's getting ridiculous.2606:6000:60CC:C900:3C6A:5721:B278:968A (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

perhaps change the title to "Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index? A mouthful, but if this confusion is a frequent problem...

Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

should i add a column for population?or

I was thinking of adding a column for population to the main table "Democracy Index by country 2019". So that the list can be sorted to see the places where most people live together at the top. Probably copied from the data available elsewhere on wikipedia e.g. list of countries by population.

It is a fairly time consuming mission, so i wanted to run it past other contributors to this article first. It would be way too frustrating if i spent the time on it and then someone deleted the column or did a rollback soon after.

I don't have an ulterior motive to hide or promote anywhere in particular. I'm Australian; we scored very well on this index and we're pretty tiny. I just think it would be useful and interesting to see China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Russia, etc. next to each other rather than scrolling through to compare?

Other factors would be interesting, but the table might get too bulky or too controversial? e.g. GDP, GNP, literacy rate, G8, G20, UN, Arab league, etc. National population estimates can be a bit inaccurate or out of date, but they don't tend to be subjective or controversial?

Irtapil (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Many things might be interesting but the EIU report doesn't show population so neither should we. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

United States

Hi, I know that this is just data from a specific company, but it still feels weird to make one wikipedia page about this as if it is generally accepted knowledge. Is there a way to create a more objective wikipedia page with a democracy index that is not based on one commercial company? More specifically/to give just one example, I am quite surprised United States still scores relatively high on this list, given the rapid decline in democratic practice (a process already quite visible before the 2019 reference date).Jelle1975 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The point isn't to make an objective Wikipedia page, though. The point is to present the results of the EUI; to change the list would be to falsely report the organization's list. This isn't the only index relevant to the subject matter, there are several (such as Freedom in the World by Freedom House). Some you might agree with more than others. But we're not the curators of their contents. 2600:1012:B042:2C42:0:56:D2EC:B901 (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Broken citation

Hello,

The citation in the article to an Google webcache archived version of the whitepaper (citation #8, "Democracy Index 2019 A year of democratic setbacks and popular protest", https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pxkaGlbZ-zEJ:https://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx%3Ffi%3DDemocracy-Index-2019.pdf%26mode%3Dwp%26campaignid%3Ddemocracyindex2019+&cd=1&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se) now leads to a 404 error. I did go and put the original URL into my browser, and came up with this, after removing the "campaignid": http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democracy-Index-2019.pdf&mode=wp

Would it violate the copyright to link directly to this URL?

Jcb cummings (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jcb cummings: I am unable to get to the pdf if I click directly on the link. I got redirected to https://www.eiu.com/n/ instead. – robertsky (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: I figured out what happened. Turns out, I was logged into a burner account that I made to get the 2018 edition last year. I just haven't cleaned my cookies in well over a year.

In any case, that is the URL of the whitepaper (when you log in or create an account with them). I suppose we could still put it in, but how would we let people know that an account is required to access it? Jcb cummings (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jcb cummings: There is another citation to the 2019 index sign up page already:

<ref name="index2019">{{Cite web|url=https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=democracyindex2019|title=Democracy Index 2019 A year of democratic setbacks and popular protest|website=[[Economist Intelligence Unit|EIU.com]]|url-access=registration|access-date=24 January 2020}}</ref>

I have removed the WhitepaperHandler citation instead since there's no way to access it directly anyway. – robertsky (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2020

In the table, there is 2 countries in North America. Mexico is considered in North America. The number should be 3 instead and one less in central america. Cedbomb (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is the classification that the source uses. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

Add This Image Showing A Chart Of Full Democracies, Flawed Democracies, Hybrid Regimes, Authoritarian Regimes And Countries Not Rated.

WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

​Is this by number of countries or by population? I'm not quite sure about this graph in either case, people generally don't read pie graphs very well. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Number Of Countries. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It is of course cited in this very article, but I think it might be of more value to show a bar graph by population. Those could be made in Wikitext and wouldn't require an image to be uploaded. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about certain country links

Why do they link to the mobile versions of those pages (ie New Zealand)? Wouldn't it make more sense to have them be the default web links? UnstoppablePhoenix (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2020

Turkey is listed as "Western Europe." Europe at all is rather dubious; Western is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4300:6EE0:DC0B:AF91:910F:D40 (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Countries Attributed to Wrong Continents

Are the countries attributed to their respective continents by the list of the Economist Intelligence Unit? Or was it done by the creator of this article? Some countries are attributed to the wrong continents:
Turkmenistan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Tajikistan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Uzbekistan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Azerbaijan is Western Asia not Eastern Europe
Kazakhstan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Turkey is at best Eastern Europe, though 97% of the landmass is Asian and its political center is in the Asian part. >85% of the population live in the Asian part of Turkey
Kyrgyzstan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Georgia is Western Asia not Eastern Europe
Armenia is Western Asia not Eastern Europe
Cyprus is Eastern Europe not Western Europe socially, though geographically it is Asian.
2001:4DD5:89F4:0:A197:9529:9143:119F (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It is done by the Economist Intelligence Unit.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

On the last table titled Democracy Index by Region (Region should be capitalized I think) it states that North America has 2 countries when it actually has many more. It seems this table was put together for convenience than actual facts. Maybe to group people by race or culture? Certainly not by geography. KemicalOca (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The article follows the categorization by EUI because it is an article about the EUI report. While I do think North America has more than two countries it is not for us to decide the categorization on an article that's supposed to be about what EUI states. (On a side note, I don't see how grouping by race or culture makes it better.) 2600:1012:B04E:4CF5:0:17:4C98:FC01 (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

lead

I do think a good idea is to remove boldface from "state of democracy". This isn't the title, so I don't know why it's boldfaced; this increases the perception that this is a general or in-house index and not an article about the EUI like it's supposed to be. 2600:1012:B024:7B87:0:4D:D78A:3801 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It's boldfaced because state of democracy is a redirect to this article. If state of democracy is deleted, turned back into an article, or redirected elsewhere, then the boldface should be removed. Station1 (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Does Is "state of democracy" worth the redirect? That just seems to draw attention away from this being a publication from a particular source. 2600:1012:B024:7B87:0:4D:D78A:3801 (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You make a good point. I've redirected state of democracy to List of freedom indices, which is a broader and more generic article, and removed the boldface in this article. Station1 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2020

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: Not moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 19:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Democracy Index → Democracy Index (Economist Group) – Article name implies that this is an independent Democracy index, but this is subjective one by The Economist Group 139.47.103.167 (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per my arguments at Talk:Democracy Index/Archive 1#Requested move 17 March 2019. We have no general article about the concept of a democracy index so a disambiguated title is not needed per WP:PRECISION. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Are you proposing that "Democracy Index" becomes a DAB page? WP:TITLECHANGES says "do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view" if this is the reason for including "Economist Group". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• comment there probably should be a DAB of various freedom/ democracy rankings though. blindlynx (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

We have List of freedom indices and List of international rankings#Politics. A DAB is for articles which could have had the same title. That doesn't apply to the other indexes. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair, but it is reasonable to assume that when people search for 'democracy index' they could be looking for general democracy/freedom indexes rather than this on in particular. blindlynx (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as WP:OVERPRECISION. This is a proper name that correctly identifies the subject. The article makes clear in the first sentence that it's run by The Economist; that's not the function of an article title. If we need a dab page or broad concept article, it should be written over the lower case democracy index redirect. Station1 (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2020 (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.

Next Democracy Index

I updated this table to show changes in score and rank of the 2019 Democracy Index. Can you all update the changes when the next index (2020) is released? Quang, Bùi Huy (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Numbers in "Democracy Index by regime type" are erroneous

The correct numbers are full democracies = 23 #1 to #22 plus Canada/Denmark tie for #7 Flawed democracies = 58 #23 to #80 plus many ties Hybrid regime = 41 #77 to #113 ties #97, #102, #89, #75 Authoritarian regime = 54 #114 to #167 plus 8 ties

Inconsistency between Regime type

Between the table in Democracy Index by country, Composition of Democracy Index and the infographic by the Economist, the regime type for 2020 is inconsistent. I don't know which are the true value. (See Taiwan, France and USA for example)72.53.104.28 (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no inconsistency. Taiwan is a full democracy in 2020. France and USA are flawed democracies. 2020 is the right-most column. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Color contrast

Just noticed a question at the help desk archives about a reader asking what the total score value was for Iceland.....as they could not see the number because of colour blindness problems.--Moxy 🍁 01:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

New Democracy Index

When anyone decides to update this table for the new Democracy Index, can you please leave a quick note here? It may help prevent duplicate work. Thanks. Intralexical (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm updating the main list with the democracy index, the type of regime and the value for each category. Fm3dici97 (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is the newly updated table separated by continent and in alphabetical order, instead of being ordered by score from highest to lowest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackintheBox (talk • contribs)

@JackintheBox: There is ranking order in Democracy Index#Composition of Democracy Index. Democracy Index#Democracy Index by country shows many years so a ranking order would only apply to one year, and I see no need for two tables in ranking order. You can however sort the table by ranking in any year by clicking the arrows at top of the column. The shown rank number will always be for 2020. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The section ordering seemed a bit odd. I have moved the 2020 index which is sorted by rank to be the first major table.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is Belize nowhere on the list? Janjan.cz (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Janjan.cz: The list is published by the Economist Intelligence Unit. They omit many small countries, some with larger population than Belize. There are 167 countries and territories on their list. The United Nations has 193 members. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Could Jersey have its own entry in the tables as it has very different arrangements from the rest of the UK?

Jersey has no political parties and most citizens feel left out of decisions. Elector turnout at elections are around 33%. This could usefully be brought out in this page. Thanks. Bicyclic (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Bicyclic, only if it is originally listed in the EIU report which the list is based on. – robertsky (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You are correct and I have now written to the EIU about this issue. Tax havens such as Jersey commonly have very large scale economic activities which are supported by legislation intended to benefit non-residents rather than their local populations. Bicyclic (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Canada

I disagree that Canada has a full democracy as there is constitutional monarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.242.58.41 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The article begins: "The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)". It's not about what Wikipedia editors think but I disagree with you, and so does every political scientist I have heard of. There are many constitutional monarchies where the monarch only has a ceremonial role and no real power. And many authoritarian regimes officially have democratic laws but ignore them. Democracy is about what happens in reality. 7 of the top 10 in the EIU list are constitutional monarchies. The EIU scale goes from 0 to 10 where full democracy is 8.01 to 10. Canada has 9.24. I don't know whether they get a tiny deduction for the monarchy but I assume most of the "missing" 0.76 is other things. No country has a perfect 10. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Turkey in Western Europe?

Why? Nonsense. ReddishClover (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

As is explained in the article: "The regions are assigned by the Economist Intelligence Unit." ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Seychelles?

Where is Seychelles or has the island sunk in the Indian Ocean?🥵🥵🥵 Nlivataye (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of the article. "The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)." What countries are on the list is decided by them. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing that. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

And Democracy Index#By regime type says: "Some microstates are not considered in the calculation." PrimeHunter (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Added Italics

In line with Freedom in the World, and per MOS:MAJORWORK and MOS:ITALICS, I've italicized the text "Democracy Index" in the body and title of this article. Intralexical (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Turkey western europe?

Turkey is more like middle east, only a tiny part is in europe, the most of the land is in asia. Also the culture is not european.

2001:16B8:61D:B00:D181:3F17:D49C:7FBD (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

edit: nevermind, the failure was made in the source already it seems. 2001:16B8:61D:B00:D181:3F17:D49C:7FBD (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Circular reference

The reference used in the Criticism section has a tag. It is true that the reference mentions Wikipedia, but I think that is not enough to consider it a circular reference. When the author criticises that the Democracy Index is done by unknown experts, he writes: Who are these experts? Nobody knows. Wikipedia dryly notes that the report does not reveal their number, nationality, credentials or even field of expertise. In my opinion, he is just quoting a sentence he liked to make his point, but he does not base it on Wikipedia. And the rest of the article is just the personal opinion (criticism is always an opinion, of course) of the analyst who wrote it. So I think the tag should be removed.--Gorpik (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting; that's an interpretation I actually hadn't thought of. I saw it as that the article actually used Wikipedia as a source, and at the time that statement was unsouced. So I guess the question is whether we can trust the author that they did their own research and not just copied from Wikipedia? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Update: after several searches with WikiBlame I found the edit that introduced the info: Special:Diff/191550782, all the way back in 2008 by JoergenB. In the edit summary he mentioned "the pdf report" as his source – I wonder if it's acceptable to use that or if it falls under original research. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

To me, this is a bit like an anonymous call to the police. An anonymous call has no legal value, but the police can act on it and find things, which can be presented in court. In this case, if the author read that on Wikipedia and then went and checked that the report, indeed, does not give information about the experts, that is completely valid. We can go to the report and see if this is the case. And the same goes for your update: if the report really explains its methodology in the way written in this article, then it is valid. If JoergenB took that, mixed it with other info and came up with their own conclusions, then it is OR indeed. Unfortunately, I haven't got the time to do this myself right now.--Gorpik (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Well,well, well. I wrote this a long time ago, as Jochem van Hees notes, which makes it somewhat harder to remember the details. E. g., I do not think that I was aware of any criticism from 1991 (such as now given by means of the link The_Economist#Editorial_anonymity). However, as far as I remember, I based the `methodology' section just on a reading of the given (primary) source. Thus, for my contribution, no circularity was involved. On the other hand, I have to admit that criticism for WP:OR might be more adequate; but not quite in the way Gorpik suggests as one alternative. As far as I remember it, there was no synthesis involved between materials from the pdf and any other sources, since I did not rely on nor even read any such sources.

My edit did not create a Criticism section. As I wrote in my edit summary, "I make no assesment of the methodology; but do report on lacking information". I mainly tried to describe what the methology involves, but also included a few statements on what the report didn't contain. I think that essentially this was done in a proper manner; but there are a few details I now think that I probably would be a bit doubtful about adding, if I had made this edit in later years. These involve on the one hand the following methodology detail: I wrote "With the exceptions infra, seemingly, the sums are added within each category, multiplied by ten, and divided by the total number of questions within the category." Now, employing primary sources actually is not against our written policies (as sometimes some editors seem to believe); but such use is and should be restricted. One such restriction states that

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" (see WP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources).

I'm afraid that here I may have interpreted "any educated person without specialized knowledge" (or whatever the precise WP:OR formulation then was) more from my own experiences (I'm a senior mathematician). I think that I now have a better understanding of the limits in mathemathical understanding even of many "educated readers". I still believe that that statement is easily "verified by any" mathematically sufficiently "educated person with access to the primary source"; but shall not dispute that the sufficient mathematical education probably involves what the policy refers to as "specialized knowledge" (albeit not of facts, but of methods).

On the other hand, it is arguable that the report of absences does involve reading the full pdf, and that this can be interpreted as involving a kind of synthesis. If you read just a part, you may from that gain insight in what is present (and present this as "clearly stated facts"), but you still do not know if what you are missing is present in the parts you didn't read.

As a matter of fact, as far as I remember, I read the pdf fairly thoroughly, and was a bit frustrated about unavailable information. I looked e. g. for more detailed information about the difference in the scores given to Sweden and the US. The report did present the averages for each of the five fields, but not for the individual questions; and I found no link to any publicly available presentation of more detailed numbers. In some cases, the answers for the individual questions were either deducible or possible to guess. E. g., I remember looking at the following question:

10. Do opposition parties have a realistic prospect of achieving government?

1: Yes

0.5: There is a dominant two-party system in which other political forces never have any effective chance of taking part in national government

0: No

Since this belonged to the first field, where Sweden then got full marks as average, I deduced that it got a 1 also for this question. On the other hand, the middle alternative seemed to be a rather good description of the situation in both the US and the UK, and I therefore felt convinced that both countries only got 0.5 for question 10. (I also deduced that Sweden got what IMHO was already then inadequate full marks in some cases. In fact, its score was adjusted downwards a bit a few years later, partly for reasons I had been thinking about.)

I also was a bit frustrated about the way different editors tried to adjust the article according to their views of "the truth" rater than the report by The Economist. E. g., the scale was declared to run from 1 to 10 several times; which seemed related to a wish to declare North Korea with its score 1.08 to be practically at the absolute minimum. Since I had read the report, I knew that this was not the case; it did score 0.0 on some important fields, but a little bit higher (but still horribly low) on some others. I guessed that North Korea might have got scores e. g. for some predictability of its juridical system; meaning that to at least some extent its ordinary citizen would know what they could or could not do, to avoid punishment.

I of course did not add any of these private musings to the article. Instead, I tried to make it clearer what the report clearly was, and what was not as clear, based entirely on its self description. (That this was the basis I clearly declared in the beginning of the section: "As described in the report, ...".) I today think that I may have passed a little beyond the "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person" in some details (vide supra); but I still think that mainly the methodology part I added was well within what WP:OR allowed and allows. Regards, JoergenB (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for this detailed explanation thirteen years after the fact. I haven't got much to add and will be happy with whatever the outcome of this discussion is.--Gorpik (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ordering of the columns

@Somedifferentstuff: I'm not sure what you mean with that "the formatting is completely in order with the header changes" – the table content didn't change at all. The current revision of the page says that Canada has a score of 9.07 in 2020 and 9.24 in 2006, but it should be the other way around. The version before your change did have this correct. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jochem van Hees:, you are correct; can you help me fix this? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess, but is this really necessary? Having the columns go choronogically feels more intuitive for me, and if you want to see the 2020 ranking you can also go to the components section. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I think readers want to see the most current information (of this type) when they first come to an article, but I will self revert since we are in disagreement. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could also move the "Components" section up then? Because you're right that most people will probably be looking for that. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: Totally agree on reorganizing the columns from most recent year to the most distant. I have made these edits in case other want to see how it looks and weigh-in Superb Owl (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a small remark: normally the procedure is to first reach consensus, and then make the edit. Not the other way around. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ah, I see - thanks for helping me understand the process better (still pretty new to editing). I had assumed it was whichever result had the most votes, at least for this page ;) Would love your thoughts on color discussion below Superb Owl (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That's okay, I guess I'm nitpicking a bit much here. If you want to know more, there's more info at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, although that's just a guideline, not a policy (which I forget sometimes). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Color in Tables/Map

The Economist uses more blue and orange in their 2020 report. Switching to blues for democracies would help most colorblind users who (speaking from experience) struggle with certain red-green distinctions.

Superb Owl (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Superb_Owl

Thanks for looking into this! I think these changes would make it a lot better; I never actually thought about how colorblind readers might see the map. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Right now, the Legend for the Economist map mentions Blue etc., but the map itself still uses green. This needs to be consolidated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C846:133F:DD00:D811:446C:3E5F:4926 (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)