![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I added the WP:COI template because the creator and main contributor of the article (11K out of 12K) is a user named User:Legatumltd. -- Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso ( talk) 08:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
As previously noted elsewhere, we have acknowledged our association with the subject of this article. Again, we refute the suggestion of COI based on the fact that the Prosperity Index is a publicly available, fact-driven, bona fide research study that has been commented upon by numerous reputable media and therefore sits firmly in the public domain; the research was conducted by Oxford Analytica, a renowned research practitioner, and the findings were peer-reviewed by leading academics specialising in this field (noted in the article). Further, the reference to weasel words is unspecific: a more detailed explanation would be helpful. Legatumltd ( talk) 07:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I found only a single reference to the Legatum Prosperity Index in the scholarly literature: [1], and this reference is from a working paper that has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. I see it has been referenced a number of times in news sources, however, and I see that many of the members of its advisory panel are notable and well-respected. On this grounds I would say that the index is notable. However...I do think the current page is extremely problematic: most of the material on this page cannot be verified in independent third-party sources--it comes right off the organization's website itself and isn't discussed or verified anywhere. Cazort ( talk) 23:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I just removed the unsourced statement about ties to the Bush administration. However, upon doing a preliminary search I did find some evidence of these ties. I restructured the article to contain a section about the institute itself with a subsection about personnel, and I added one sentence describing one connection to the Bush administration. Because this is potentially controversial material, we need to be highly specific and document this information with reliable sources. Cazort ( talk) 20:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
06:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
GARBAGE it. Until it is proven there is a building, or at least a significant chunk of an entire floor of a building, this is not an "institute", it is a mail-box, and a bunch of propagandists. They have taken a page STRAIGHT out of the anti-abortion playbook. That should tell you where they are coming from and how credible they are. Not to mention they are funded by what appears to be a hedge-fund. NGO's with peer reviewed funding provide unbiased peer-reviewed reports. These guys dont't even get near that universe. They are privately funded, and not peer-reviewed. Assuming there is any funding at all and they don't slap these reports together in two days on their computer once a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.4.118 ( talk) 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This "institute" has no credibility at all... they trend to define its ranking with a huge amount of religious and conservative bias. In the case of Mexico, they degraded it just because there are lots of single people and high incidence of no married ones, plus a lower participation in "religious networks" than in Brazil ... ???
kardrak 23:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The tables display only the ranking but not the index itself. That should be fixed since the article is explicitly about the index. -- JazzmanDE ( talk) 12:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legatum Prosperity Index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
This article has no evidence of notability, and at least some of its significant contributors have a conflict of interest. It needs to be redirected to its parent organization, the Legatum Institute. I shall wait a few days at least and then I intend to redirect the page. Sylvia de Jonge ( talk) 12:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey @ RandomHashTags: I noticed that you enlarged the chart to include all the countries in the 2019 Rankings and scores by country chart. That was a big undertaking - did you do it manually or with some program? Looked very time consuming. I noticed they already came out with their 2020 numbers if you, or anyone else, feels like updating this chart. I thought of doing it but it seems so time consuming! Definitely a big undertaking but it would certainly be a great contribution. 207.177.234.64 ( talk) 09:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
It appears that values no longer appear to the same on current editions. Legatum seems to be adjusting past values based on some own methodology. The tables included in this article do indeed correspond to the data as captured at the time, but if you go to the linked website data values even for past years have changed. So I guess there needs to be some consensus on this. A. Should the article be updated to bring tables for past years up to date with current value adjustments? OR B. Should the article continue displaying values as captured at the time of publication? In case B. is preferred, these values are no longer linked in the website but the full data Excel files that contain them can be accessed via https://web.archive.org/web/20200801000000*/https://www.prosperity.com/about/resources. So at the very least the source link needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnkgr ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I added the WP:COI template because the creator and main contributor of the article (11K out of 12K) is a user named User:Legatumltd. -- Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso ( talk) 08:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
As previously noted elsewhere, we have acknowledged our association with the subject of this article. Again, we refute the suggestion of COI based on the fact that the Prosperity Index is a publicly available, fact-driven, bona fide research study that has been commented upon by numerous reputable media and therefore sits firmly in the public domain; the research was conducted by Oxford Analytica, a renowned research practitioner, and the findings were peer-reviewed by leading academics specialising in this field (noted in the article). Further, the reference to weasel words is unspecific: a more detailed explanation would be helpful. Legatumltd ( talk) 07:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I found only a single reference to the Legatum Prosperity Index in the scholarly literature: [1], and this reference is from a working paper that has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. I see it has been referenced a number of times in news sources, however, and I see that many of the members of its advisory panel are notable and well-respected. On this grounds I would say that the index is notable. However...I do think the current page is extremely problematic: most of the material on this page cannot be verified in independent third-party sources--it comes right off the organization's website itself and isn't discussed or verified anywhere. Cazort ( talk) 23:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I just removed the unsourced statement about ties to the Bush administration. However, upon doing a preliminary search I did find some evidence of these ties. I restructured the article to contain a section about the institute itself with a subsection about personnel, and I added one sentence describing one connection to the Bush administration. Because this is potentially controversial material, we need to be highly specific and document this information with reliable sources. Cazort ( talk) 20:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
06:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
GARBAGE it. Until it is proven there is a building, or at least a significant chunk of an entire floor of a building, this is not an "institute", it is a mail-box, and a bunch of propagandists. They have taken a page STRAIGHT out of the anti-abortion playbook. That should tell you where they are coming from and how credible they are. Not to mention they are funded by what appears to be a hedge-fund. NGO's with peer reviewed funding provide unbiased peer-reviewed reports. These guys dont't even get near that universe. They are privately funded, and not peer-reviewed. Assuming there is any funding at all and they don't slap these reports together in two days on their computer once a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.4.118 ( talk) 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This "institute" has no credibility at all... they trend to define its ranking with a huge amount of religious and conservative bias. In the case of Mexico, they degraded it just because there are lots of single people and high incidence of no married ones, plus a lower participation in "religious networks" than in Brazil ... ???
kardrak 23:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The tables display only the ranking but not the index itself. That should be fixed since the article is explicitly about the index. -- JazzmanDE ( talk) 12:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legatum Prosperity Index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
This article has no evidence of notability, and at least some of its significant contributors have a conflict of interest. It needs to be redirected to its parent organization, the Legatum Institute. I shall wait a few days at least and then I intend to redirect the page. Sylvia de Jonge ( talk) 12:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey @ RandomHashTags: I noticed that you enlarged the chart to include all the countries in the 2019 Rankings and scores by country chart. That was a big undertaking - did you do it manually or with some program? Looked very time consuming. I noticed they already came out with their 2020 numbers if you, or anyone else, feels like updating this chart. I thought of doing it but it seems so time consuming! Definitely a big undertaking but it would certainly be a great contribution. 207.177.234.64 ( talk) 09:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
It appears that values no longer appear to the same on current editions. Legatum seems to be adjusting past values based on some own methodology. The tables included in this article do indeed correspond to the data as captured at the time, but if you go to the linked website data values even for past years have changed. So I guess there needs to be some consensus on this. A. Should the article be updated to bring tables for past years up to date with current value adjustments? OR B. Should the article continue displaying values as captured at the time of publication? In case B. is preferred, these values are no longer linked in the website but the full data Excel files that contain them can be accessed via https://web.archive.org/web/20200801000000*/https://www.prosperity.com/about/resources. So at the very least the source link needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnkgr ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)