Talk:Economic Freedom of the World

message: * I know it comes directly from the Heritage Foundation, but that map is screwed up, and I'm not just talkin' bout the northern hemisphere projection bias!  Why is the European part of Turkey a different color than the Asian part, did it secede??  And when did Japan take Sakhalin back from Russia?!  --AlexLibman 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of economic freedom 

message: Most of the criticism section, rather than explain the criticism, rebuts it.  This could possibly be subdivided or put in its own section, but as it stands the section is more of a point-counterpoint than a criticism section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meviin (talk • contribs) 00:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV states that the view of all sides should be represented. The section could be renamed to "Criticisms and arguments for". Having two separate sections will make it difficult to follow the debate.Ultramarine 01:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I came here with the similar sentiment of a conjuring trick. Yours is more precise and apparently better researched. I simply come with the observation that most people want to live simply and closer to the nature, but this is inconsistent with such indices. That is, what if people want to be "poor"? Such indices would suggest that they are not free to do this. The freedom to grow (the industrial system) is the only freedom that is recognized. This is coming from my first-hand observation of people in "poor countries" living happily in the countryside under traditional ways of life that are being pushed into extinction under the premise that these people must not be "economically free" if they are living this way. The more such people I meet and the more such cultures I come into contact with, the more skeptical I am that wealth is not mutually exclusive with freedom. In the US this connection is objective and quantitative in the sense that the wealthier you are the higher your taxes are. So it would seem that the only way to have complete economic freedom is to be penniless.158.108.231.154 (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section POV 

message: The argument that economic freedom correlates with "higher life expectancy, higher literacy, lower infant mortality, higher access to water sources and less corruption" is empirically wrong. The social democracies and general EU states, as well as Canada, all have higher life expectancies and higher rates of literacy then the United States, even though the US is rated as economically more free. Likewise these listed outperform Hong Kong, the economically freest country, to an even higher degree. In fact, many of the least economically free in comparison to other developed nations listed (Denmark, Sweden, and Norway) have THE highest levels of life expectancy.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.131.44 (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research 

message: Seriously,why is there a criticism section?If you want to bash economic freedom,you can do somewhere else mmkay?This has nothing to do with the article and should be deleted.
:...it's not about "bashing economic freedom" or even criticizing economic freedom. It's about criticism of these specific politically-biased organizations' definitions of what constitutes "economic freedom". — Red XIV (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is encyclopedic about "criticism" 

message: The topic of Criticism should not be deleted, as understanding the controversy is part of understanding the index.  If you look up any philosophical or academic entry on Wikipedia, you will find a section regarding popular criticisms. 
What is odd is that the "Criticism" section is piss poorly written.  As stated above, it contains more rebuttles of critics rather than giving those critics a fair shake to make their arguments.  This does not serve the interests of education, and thus, this section really needs a rewrite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.78.23.54 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" 

message: I've tweaked the section a bit, and removed the NPOV tag as its normal to have rebuttals in a criticism section. Indeed Guns, Germs and Steel crossed my mind as well, but that speaks to past wealth inequality rather than modern economic development. Accordingly Taiwan was very poor until recently, now the past limitations of trade and investment no longer apply. They can leverage and then manufacture technology without needing to create it themselves. Use  for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - Roy Boy 23:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV removed

message: On this map, European Turkey is colored as 70-80% free, yet Asian Turkey is 50-59% free...  Which is it?  Tomer talk 08:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding map 

message: Fraser Institute has new rankings: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=934  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.80.179 (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new 2007 rankings 

message: I think someone accidentally put the "Index of Economic Freedom 2008" here instead of "Economic Freedom of the World"...128.113.37.211 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Ratings Error 

message: Under "Research" there's a dead link to "An overview of research can be found here"
FredrikMeyer (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I'm sure this article needs attention, and some of the recent changes may be improvements, but the changes are coming fast and look very heavy-handed. I'm leaning toward reverting to yesterday's version so the changes can be discussed carefully a bit at a time... CRETOG8(t/c) 02:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, they kept coming, so I did a rollback, and can try to discuss them here. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I doubt you're new here, but in case you are, don't worry the edits you did are all still accessible. I'm kid- wrangling at the moment so my ability to discuss in-depth will be slower than your ability to write. Sorry about that. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow down! 

message: Section '2010 Annual Report' refers to reference 17 as "Summary Economic Freedom Ratings for 2010[17]"
However, reference 17 is a link to the 2012 rankings (which use numbers from 2010, likely resulting in the confusion.) The rankings on the article page are outdated. Note that on the Wikipedia article the US is tied for 4th place; in the most recent 2012 report the US has dropped to 18th. See page 10 of http://www.freetheworld.com/2012/EFW2012-ch1.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.207.74 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong data set?

message: After this deletion discussion ended in a no consensus, actionable keep (3r-3k-Nom.), I am holding this RfC to see if the community wishes to
:::Merge the article or portions of the article to Fraser Institute.
If no consensus can be determined, the article will just be retained as is. If Merge is the outcome, another RfC can be held to determine what gets moved, if needs be. L3X1 (distant write) 13:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging all who participated in del debate:  L3X1 (distant write) 13:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Comment - what is the advantage in merging part or all of the article with Fraser Institute? Jonpatterns (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think it needs to be merged. L3X1 (distant write) 19:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

text: General criticism – the article Economic Freedom of the World is supposedly about an annual publication. But almost all of the article is about the findings reported in the publication, rather than the publication itself. Compare it with the article on Nature, which does not even mention the views Nature expresses on e.g. government support for science. (If we removed from the current article all the material which isn't about the subject, there'd be so little left that merging it into Fraser Institute would be an easy decision.) Maproom (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Fraser Institute]]? RfC 

message: * Oppose Given the size of both articles, merging makes no sense. Abel (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support if prefer merge or Oppose

message: : Comment - what is the advantage in merging part or all of the article with Fraser Institute? Jonpatterns (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think it needs to be merged. L3X1 (distant write) 19:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

text: General criticism – the article Economic Freedom of the World is supposedly about an annual publication. But almost all of the article is about the findings reported in the publication, rather than the publication itself. Compare it with the article on Nature, which does not even mention the views Nature expresses on e.g. government support for science. (If we removed from the current article all the material which isn't about the subject, there'd be so little left that merging it into Fraser Institute would be an easy decision.) Maproom (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Regarding this revert, I consider the list of nn authors to be excessive in the infobox. Separately, the AfD closed as "No consensus" (not as "Keep") so the notability of this subject is still in question. Please advise on the rationale behind the reverts. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The minute author and cover artist are removed from the infobox template you will be free to delete those parameters. The AfD was decided long before the references section was radically changed. Abel (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Now OBE. All the authors, unsourced, have been removed IAW WP:BB. – S. Rich (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do OBE and IAW stand for? Abel (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume IAW is actually WP:IAR but am less sure about WP:OBE because I don't see how that applies here.  d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be IOW - In Other Words. OBE is in the WP:G as "Overtaken By Events". Apologies.  – S. Rich (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Has an International Standard Book Number, "Any book made publicly available, whether for sale or on a gratis basis, can be identified by ISBN." Abel (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Work cited thousands of times in peer reviewed academic journals not notable? That makes no sense whatsoever.Abel (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion at another article re notability has little bearing on this article. And to repeat my AfD comment, 'the Fraser Institute itself is very highly ranked (2014 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report) as a think tank. In my Google Scholar search for "fraser institute freedom index" I got 78,500 hits. E.g., lots of authors are looking at the Freedom of the World index as a source.' This article, as a stand-alone, is noteworthy and helpful to readers. Tag is not appropriate.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability; nn authors 

message: Clarification: this is not a "book" but an annual report, whose authors (I assume) change annually. 
: Has an International Standard Book Number, "Any book made publicly available, whether for sale or on a gratis basis, can be identified by ISBN." Abel (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Work cited thousands of times in peer reviewed academic journals not notable? That makes no sense whatsoever.Abel (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion at another article re notability has little bearing on this article. And to repeat my AfD comment, 'the Fraser Institute itself is very highly ranked (2014 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report) as a think tank. In my Google Scholar search for "fraser institute freedom index" I got 78,500 hits. E.g., lots of authors are looking at the Freedom of the World index as a source.' This article, as a stand-alone, is noteworthy and helpful to readers. Tag is not appropriate.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: notability tag

message: New data has emerged from the 2017 index. This page should be updated to reflect these most recent changes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.118.53.181 (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New data (2017) 

message: Economic Freedom Audit Grant, Atlas Network. AndroidCat (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlas Network funding 

message: "Although the World Bank does not believe that laissez-faire policies, if they allow large inequalities of wealth to develop, are an effective way to achieve this goal, it is a strong supporter of the importance of economic growth for reducing poverty. "
I take issue with this paragraph. The World Bank doesn't believe or not believe anything. Only individuals believe things. What does this even mean? Is it the stated policy of the World Bank to oppose laissez-faire? I just think this statement is nonsensical as worded. I mean I agree with the gist of it, that probably most of the people at the world bank favour a mixed market approach or something like that, if that is what they are trying to say. But really it sohuld say "a paper published by the world bank" or "researchers at the world bank argued".  I'm not sure they speak for the entire World Bank or World Bank policy as this statement seems to indicate. Also the link in the citation is dead. Meistro1 (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  the world bank doesn't like laissez-faire