Talk:Global Peace Index

Untitled

Question- how many countries in the list ? Can we put the total number in the first paragraph of the article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Ladd (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Question- how many countries in the list ? Can we put the total number in the first paragraph of the article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Ladd (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My question about the criticisms is, how does freedom affect peace? While some of the countries listed may actually give its citizens less personal freedoms, the index is measuring peace, not freedom. Oranges91 01:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

GEORGIA?

The Index ranks 144 countries, up from 121 in 2007 and aims at adding more countries every year, as data becomes available. Who edits this page? Some of the criticism might have to be looked at as well as parts of the text, since the index now ranks Iceland, North Korea etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camillaschippa (talk • contribs) 01:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Graphic

I note the second graphic "Change of number of countries in each GPI class from 2007-2009." has the wrong symbol for less than on the bottom legend entry. UselessFactMan (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

2008 list

New 2008 list should replace the 2007 list. http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2008/

If anyone have the time to update, please do :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UlrikOldenburg (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi done, though it could use some make over. If someone can point in the direction of a proper template I can regenerate it in a flash, -anon.

2007/2008

Many of the references are dated 2008, they should probably be 2007. Stevage 01:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

fixed --Spitzl 11:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

ex aequo

Ex aequo countries should be taken into account. Why is Canada 8th and Portugal 9th if both have a 1.481 score? Because Canada comes first alphabetically?... That is not very scientific. The correct list should have two countries ranked as 8th and no country ranked as 9th. The same is true for Qatar and Costa Rica (ex aequo at 30th), France and Vietnam (34th), Kazakhstan and Bahrain (61st), etc. Gazilion (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, these countries had a different score, beyond the 3rd decimal point. So the correct approach would be to include the 4th decimal point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camillaschippa (talk • contribs) 01:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

I'm confused by this article. Is Ireland (island) listed 4th? or the Republic of Ireland listed 4th? GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it up; on the assumption that the latter was meant. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Rankings table redone

I've rebuilt the rankings table from scratch using information from the two "Results" PDFs linked from the site (see last footnote). The main differences are:

1. The "change" numbers are now correct; they were completely wrong before. Also, I've had to format them somewhat strangely: unfortunately, if any non-digit characters are used in any cells (like a hyphen or minus sign), apparently the column gets sorted as text (thus, for example, 10 sorts between 1 and 2, and not after both); the leading zeros help to get a more reasonable sort order (but still not completely correct).
2. Green and red colors are used, as in the PDFs, to indicate the highest and lowest 20% of peace scores in each year.

- dcljr (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinion

WTF, USA should be the last country in the list!!!!! They had troubles with Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, North Corea, Mexico, Spain, India, and a lot of more countries!! Iraq doesn't. I don't want to have trouble with U.S.A. people, but their goverment always sucks... Sorry for my english ja... from South America, Meee! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.172.203 (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the you. I can't remember the last time USA was not involved in a war. I am from India, and the last time we were in a war was in the 70's. And India has never invaded any nation ever, so how come it is ranked below USA, who thinks that any rising country is a threat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.238.117.1 (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think USA is more peaceful than Inida, there are always troubles between India and Pakistan. I am from China —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.194.204.10 (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite what you guys think, the USA is far more peaceful. Lemniwinks (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As of this year the USA has had more actual conflict with Pakistan then India and that's setting aside the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and the conflict in Libya, if you look at the GPI website right now India's ranked as having been involved in more conflicts. Even more then Pakistan itself which just boggles the mind. The GPI is a sad joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.134.130 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

the Colors

are too mixed. Please use more distinct colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fs (talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PR CHINA

Blue? HAHA

Making Comments

Please refrain from making complaints regarding a country's placement on the list relative to other countries. The discussion section is designed to allow editors to share ideas on how to improve the article. 82.178.103.248 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

UK

Unconstructive am i ? well let me tell you i lived all my life in the UK and its peacefuller more peacefuller than those other countries Botswana or time here and we my parents go to Pakistan all the time fun time there too, this is bias u guys are gay, you don't know crap all. With all due respect you may delete this comment if you cant face them. Japan Germany France are not more peacefuller than the UK there are nazies there and all sorts of world gangs, you guys live in Australian and seriously don't know anything.

Vikings

How the mighty have fallen...ha ha ha...Valhalla has frozen (or thaw?) over, Thor and Odin must rolling on their grave. Funny how they dominate the rakings.

216.164.62.93 (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian Federation Rank

You should feel offended. While yes, Russia has been involved in at least 2 internal wars (Chechnya, Dagestan) and the South Ossetia conflict in Georgia... The U.S. has initiated Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan wars (And yes there are U.S. Soldiers in Pakistan whom are fighting/dying). Now they want to invade Iran under the pretext of attempting to build 'Nuclear Weapons'. Not to mention, the several conflicts in which you don't hear about often. (ie. Somalia,Philippines) What I don't understand is why U.S. is above Iran. Since the Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran hasn't invaded any country. In fact, Iraq invaded Iran, starting Iraq/Iran war. Also, a nuclear weapons manufacturer, deployer and two-time user of these Weapons of Mass Destruction which resulted in an estimated 200,000 civilian deaths is hassling a nation that current evidence from IAEA suggests to be simply trying to find an alternate power source and fissionable use for medical purposes. If it's because of 'Human Rights', the 'Economist Intelligence Unit' should study KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). The Mutaween (Religious Police) there are not much different from those in Iran but KSA should be ranked towards the very bottom because of Regime's corruption. Excuse me for the long speech. :) I know at least a few people will see it this way too.☼Ṅạẇạḟ Ṙạṡḥiḍ☼ (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Map to old

Can someone please update the map to the latest 2010 information?? Thx for the effort in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer of Habsburg (talk • contribs) 18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What about Tibet people?

They shouldn't be off of the charts! I hope it's at least weighed in with China's ratings. Tibet should remain recognized by all countries that remain allied with Tibet. Don't turn your backs on people in need of your good will! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.42.6.44 (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Relevancy

So some group decides to make some index, which we're glad to see that Libya's more peaceful than Jamaica - let those who adhere to this plan their vacations in the sun accordingly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Costa Rica

This article places Costa Rica at 26th, yet the country has no army. To my knowledge, was never involved in either the 1st world war or the 2nd. So why is it 26th?????? It should be 1st!!!!!!! Jaws999 (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Costa Rica

The index is only for current events, not historical events. As you can see, countries such as Germany and Japan did fairly well, though in world war 2 they were not peaceful at all. monocletophat123

New map

We need 2010 map :) --144.124.232.87 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Libya in yellow?

I wouldn't exactly call Libya nor Pakistan particularly peaceful at the moment. Could someone update the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.29.74 (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

New map for 2011 data - done.

Hey all, I made a new map (in SVG) for the 2011 data. It took me two iterating steps since I realized a bit late that it's better to use the same coloring scheme as the GPI time change graph and that a legend is a good thing to have. Unfortunately, the article now shows only the first (miscolored) version; the latest version is only displayed upon clicking all the way through to the SVG or custom PNGs. Does anyone know how to fix this? (It's not my browser cache.) Or is the solution just "waiting"? jankur (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Yep, solution was just waiting. jankur (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

the Russian data is a joke

how can the country rank in the same category like congo, north korea and afghanistan delete this list since this institute is a joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasmanis (talk • contribs) 07:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion of this article

This index does not have any encyclopedic value at all and does not seem to be based on facts, it is rather a speculative meta data. Just look at the data for 2011 and 2010 both before Arab spring. It ranks Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Greece above Turkey, India, Iran and Russia. Is this for real? Since the report for those years are out, we have seen the countries portrayed as "peaceful societies" to be actually in turmoil. The reality beats the purpose of this article easily. It seems that the whole thing is a speculation by a small group furthering their personal agenda. Such a thing should not have an entry in Wikipedia.--182.185.71.48 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be deleted but I do think that a Wikipedia article shouldn't be repeating the GPI 'data' instead focusing on what the GPI is, who supports it, criticism, etc. Obviously there's a lot of issues with the GPI's findings and I'll often be referencing other more fact-based Wikipedia articles to dispute the GPI in forums and conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.134.130 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

the list is a joke

how can russia be 2007 more peaceful than in 2008 after the georgian war and increasing after the war was over, this index is typical western bias and probably backs more up what western countries see as democrazy, look at belarus the country is red but never made a war like nato countries, also south korea is green like europe while north korea is pure red this is so retarded, both should be red than.--Askosh (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not just about how many wars have been fought in. It's about military expenditure, aggressive foreign policy, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.127.101 (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree, the list is totally unfair. It is not possible USA with over 700 foreign military bases all over the world and with several times lager military budget than the second largest military budget (China) and totaly agresive forein policy to be more peaceful than Russia (only 25 foreign bases, 24 of which on former USSR territory), Belarus, Venezuela India and many other countries. USA took part in almost any military conflict in the world after the SWW, a total number of over 200 foreign invasions and is “green”, while Russia and Soviet Union together have around 20 for the same period and is "red". Ok, I guess you will say, it is year by year classification, but this is also unfair, because it is inhumane large conflicts with thousands to millions victims and refugees like Vietnam, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan to be forgotten already next year and overridden by street protests followed by temporal arrest of a couple of people. The index is unfairly composed to serve the political propaganda of the western democracies which, with their NATO, are actually the most militaristic countries in the world today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.111.15.69 (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why Bangladesh is more peaceful, after the jihad movement and the treatment to minority there. Bangladesh may not have fought wars, but it has resulted in more jihad and more killing of innocent people. I guess either the people made a joke preparing the list or they didn't even bother to do a peaceful survey (they just took some stupid data). Also giving Arab countries (real source of terror) as more peaceful countries is a big joke.... ????? Countries causing problem are trouble, not the one where trouble is happening. May be we need to change the definition of Global peace Index... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishstar (talk • contribs) 03:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Russia is evil?

Russia is evil? The index is a fiction, a false propaganda. Democracy with weapons from NATO countries (from USA, UK, France and allied "democracy" Katar, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, Georgia) in countries: Yugoslavia (Serbia and Kosovo), Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, South Ossetia, Syria) is a "peaceful operation" from "peaceful" NATO countries and "peaceful" allied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosssW (talk • contribs) 11:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Outdated images

Some of the images appear to be outdated; they should reflect the most current index. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serhan131 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 report abd reflectioms on Russia

New report was released today.

I do think that Russia is actually in correct place. It is a highly corrupt country run by mafias and a de facto dictator who wins elections by fraud. Russia is also a regular violator of human rights and a nationalistic spot where anyone who is not Russian is treated differently-sometimes extremely well, often well but with suspicion, and sometimes with hostility or aggression. Minorities are not well integrated, hence many terrorist attacks. Russian authorities ban any mention of homosexuality, calling it 'promotion' or 'propaganda', totally forgetting or not knowing that sexual orientation cannot be learned, because it is a personal trait, otherwise all people would be heterosexual :) In fact I would jue that Russian authorities know little about the world. I know many Russins may feel offended bit note that I mostly relate to dictatorial authorities, not citizens, and id you si not like the image of Russia that is being painted, please si something something about it before it is top late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.183 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Data

I've just added the 2013 data to the chart. However, I've noticed that the data from other years according to their website (http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#page/indexes/global-peace-index/2013) doesn't match with the data from Wikipedia, although it does match with http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/12/global-peace-index-2012. Is there a reason for this, or have I used the wrong source by mistake? In response to the criticisms above: I'd like to add that I myself don't agree with the rankings - I simply want to update the page to reflect the Index's current view. JTST4RS (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Answer - I have just looked online for some more information regarding your question. The Q and A page at the Institute for Economics and Peace website notes: 'Scores are consequently subject to change as new data becomes available. As a result, country rankings and scores may change as the methodology is refined and estimates are updated. For this reason, country rankings may differ where comparisons are made across different years.' <ref>http://economicsandpeace.org/about-us/faq </ref>

It appears the most recent data from the Vision of Humanity website that you cited has been modified so that all the scores are comparable with one another over time. Natalia.Beghin (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and all of your recent edits to improve this page JTST4RS (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes in data over time

The Q and A page online at the Institute for Economics and Peace website says that the most up to date data for all editions of the Global Peace Index can be found in the Interactive Peace Map on the Vision of Humanity Website (http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/indexes/global-peace-index)<ref>http://economicsandpeace.org/about-us/faq</ref> Natalia.Beghin (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect information

New Zealand was actually number 1 for 2009 and 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.254.97 (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

re 'Incorrect Information' - (New Zealand Scores '09-'10)

The Vision of Humanity website which contains the most up to date information on the Global Peace Index ranks New Zealand 2nd overall for both 2009 and 2010. Here is the link: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#page/indexes/global-peace-index/2009/NZL/OVER (Natalia.Beghin (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)).

Coloring in table

I am wondering if the colors in the table are used correctly. The article currently says: "Countries with rankings in green are in the most peaceful 20% for that year". If we look at the column for 2012 we can see that Romania has rank 29 yet is not green. On the other hand the UK is green despite being ranked as 41. --213.47.115.13 (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the coloring on map is rather broken. Please compare Slovakia and Poland on map and in the table for 2014. --79.191.23.149 (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a mistake?

Australia and Singapore are both marked 16. There is no 17. Next is Portugal on 18th. Is this a mistake? If so please correct.Saurabhsorby (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Saurabhsorby,9.22 p.m.,April 10, 2014

In this case there is no mistake. Due to the fact that Australia and Singapore have exactly the same score they are considered joint 16th and as such there is no 17th. Thank you for taking the time to look through the article, it is indeed very easy to make a mistake when lots of numbers are involved. JTST4RS (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

2014

New Report: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/indexes/global-peace-index — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.80.5 (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Relevant text deleted . Vandalism?

This text that has a relevant and established contribution to the article was deleted - with the comment that it was 'an anti-US screed' - that's a value judgement, the paragraph is simply factual:

" The 'Peace Index' has widely been criticised for not reflecting the fact that the USA is the most aggressive invader on the planet, and not a 'peaceful country' at all. This is largely because of a misunderstanding of what the index measures, which is how physically dangerous it is to live in the country. As is noted 'According to the Global Peace Index, Iraq is the second most dangerous country in the world (after Somalia).' by this comment in the context of this article explaining why the USA is not counted as the least peaceful country. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/27/the-supreme-crime-against-humanity-in-iraq-and-beyond/|title=‘The Supreme Crime Against Humanity’ in Iraq, and Beyond|accessdate=2014-08-09}}</ref> "

" Im sorry,I don't know how to do comments correctly,so bear with me.I think this article was the final straw.I just can't take wikipedia serious anymore.I have passively read alot of dirt about it,and now,I see with my own eyes how it isn't neutral at all! It tries very hard to seem so,but it really isn't.It doesn't take a genius anaylist really.The U.S.A , the most bloodthirsty country of them all,is ranked better than iran in terms of warmongering(iran did not fight a single attack war in its whole history). So yeah,wikipedia.I still will use you,but I will take everything you say with a grain of salt,and double and triple check on your so called "neutral" information.~

" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.223.120 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Global Peace Index ranks

I've noticed that user:Wikipediaw is changing the country ranks for a number of countries. These changes are incorrect. Please refer to 2014 Global Peace Index rank and to Guardian 2014 article. I have tried to undo these changes but they get changed back. In particular I've noticed changes to the ranks of Denmark and Syria aslo in the opening paragraph. Camillaschippa (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There have been many random changes to the list recently and it is now entirely unreliable. A complete mess. It started on 2 May with vandalism by 2602:306:BC57:480:9227:E4FF:FEED:D0B1 and has been going on ever since, also incl. many edits by user:Wikipediaw that you mentioned. Both these editors are still active and have been vandalizing lists all over wikipedia with random changes to countries and numbers. It will be a lot of work to clean it all up! Under normal circumstances I would simply have copied the entire list from the earlier version (I could not find any mistakes in that version, but didn't check everything). However, it appears there have been recent major changes to the table format itself, so I'm not really sure what to do about it. Perhaps it is best to disregard the format and change it anyway? After all, I presume the most important is that the content is correct. 62.107.216.149 (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The matter has now been referred to WP:ANI, and the list has been reverted to the 27 May version. This removes all the mistakes introduced by user:Wikipediaw, but leaves the few edits by user:2602:306:BC57:480:9227:E4FF:FEED:D0B1. I will check every entry in the list and add the relevant citations for each year. This will take some time and I may not be finished today. 62.107.216.149 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've gone back to the end of April to get those out too. You might want to manually check your recent edit for Angola though. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated. Angola is fine. Just to be sure everything is ok, I'll check the remaining years and add the citations. 62.107.216.149 (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've now checked 2014–2010. 2014 and 2013 were almost entirely correct, but there were numerous mistakes in 2012, 11 and 10. I'll have to check 09 and 08 later. I don't know if the 09 and 08 reports are online, but the rankings are here (no score). Note that immediately after the ban of user:Wikipediaw, an IP in the same range as 2602:306:BC57:480:9227:E4FF:FEED:D0B1 (who I commented on above) made his entry and reinserted the same mistakes here and here. I've reverted it again, but wouldn't be surprised if we'll see more from the editor. 62.107.216.149 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)