Talk:List of statistically superlative countries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm a little concerned about the title of this article. The phrase "List of countries that can be considered the greatest" doesn't exactly reflect an NPOV. Why not use "List of superlative countries" instead? Denelson83 00:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the title should be changed. Also, a year should be given next to every item on the list and/or on top of the list itself to avoid misunderstandings. This will get out of date some day, you know... TOR 00:48, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I disagree with the renaming of this page it misses the entire point of what this page is designed to show. It is an attempt to assemble a list of reasons that citizens and leaders give for their country being "the greatest". A far more limited notion than that of superlatives. It is similar to the article Films considered the greatest ever. See also Greatness for a list of similar articles. - SimonP 15:23, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

I vote for "List of statistically superlative countries." And no, SimonP, that argument doesn't hold water — interesting though these data are, they have nothing whatsoever to do with jingoistic declarations that a country is great. Of course nobody who claims "greatness" for his/her country does so on the basis of this page; so, accordingly, I'm revising that intro ¶ to remove that suggestion; and putting this page on requested moves. Doops | talk 02:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Page move?

List of countries that are considered the greatest → List of statistically superlative countries: this is an encyclopedia; we need a respectable encyclopedic name. Doops | talk 02:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

As can be seen from the discussion above, "List of superlative countries" and "List of statistically superlative" countries have been proposed as replacements for "List of countries that are considered the greatest." This section is for discussion of these and other possible names. Doops | talk 02:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It was suggested that this article should be renamed List of statistically superlative countries. The vote is shown below:

  • Move to List of superlative countries
  • Move to List of the 'greatest' countries by field
Another possibility would be "List of the 'greatest' countries by field." Can we have quotes in titles? Doops | talk 14:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Quotes in titles are a possibility, but usually violate the principle of using the most commonly used name. Warofdreams 13:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 21:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Which name are we voting on? —Michael Z. 2005-07-26 16:09 Z

Good Point fixed headings. Philip Baird Shearer 11:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sources

a few of these are obvious or readily verifiable by a wikipedia reader (e.g. Nobel prizes in literature); but most of these superlatives should be justified. For example, where's an explantion showing that the Roman Empire included a greater proportion of the world's population than the British Empire? Doops | talk 06:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tourism Headings

I disagree in terms of the "Tourism" heading. Here's the crux of the problem: we are attempting to create a page which provides definitive criterion for evaluations of national 'greatness' ... quantities, measures, etc. Within this set, to have a non-peer-reviewed 'survey' (more likely opinion poll) on the "favorite" country to visit is somewhat clashing.

Somehow, in a manner more elegant than the current run-on description that is in the actual text field for that survey, we need to distinguish that there are substantive differences between opinion surveys and quantity measures. The two don't belong together -- it would be akin to having a category:

Military Most airplanes - Belgium

vs.

Country with most dangerous airplanes according to Jane's Defense Weekly: Niger

It's jarring, it sets a bad precedent in terms of the content of the page, and, not to push a slippery slope here, but it invites any yahoo with a named survey to add data.

Perhaps, in anticipation of future growth, a Tourism: Objective Measures and, separately, Tourism: Subjective Measures

I see what you're saying - this is a fair concern, especially the "slippery slope" idea. I don't think dividing it by "subjective" and "objective" is really the right way to go, though. For one, choosing what to measure quantitatively, and how to do that, is itself a subjective act (this is a central concept of much of the academic literature on the social studies of science). Here, "most tourists" has been subjectively chosen as a measure of the abstract concept of "tourism". For that matter, the "Tourism" section isn't the only one that has such a thing - what is "most Nobel Prizes" but a tally of which country has had one of its citizens chosen by a very subjective process the most times?
Soo... what's a good solution? If they can't live together, I'd say we should remove the Lonely Plant/Conde Nast surveys, on the grounds that this page is better if it's not just a list of various opinion surveys about countries. (Those surveys are hugely culturally biased, as well - their readers are heavily concentrated in a few countries). Despite my point above, keep the Nobel Prizes, etc - that's different. CDC (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

___

Proposal: What if we were to create a single category at the end of the page "Subjective Measures of Greatness". The most difficult part of this is, as you alluded to in your earlier comments, the fact that many things which are seen as objective are, in fact, somewhat subjective. Nobels are given for, for example, most impacting scientific discovery as judged by a group of peers. Certainly, while there is hope for a degree of HISTORICAL CONSISTENCY, these are subjective in the purest sense of the term.

But it's different to say "most [insert subjective indicators here] given" vs. "[insert subjective indicator here] says Country X is". I think that's the key. It's an objective statistic to say: US received most Nobels.

I do think there should be room for generally 'weighty' subjective opinions as a means to discern some idea of 'greatness'. What 'weighty' vs. 'unweighty' means will inevitably have to be the task of online editors in the future. What might be suggested as useful for evaluational discernment: level of mass acceptance, peer review, expertise of indviduals surveyed as relates to the subject matter of the survey, international renown. But this is a bit ahead of the matter at hand. There is some worth in some measures of this type, and I think it adds a bit of informational flair to the article.

-- ME

[edit] Major changes

I just tried to source and add statistics to the first two sections, but there are some problems:

  1. Should we include Russia as tied with China if you count China as bordering only 14 countries?
  2. Can't find sources for a bunch of stuff. --Liface 05:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everything is now sourced

Every claim now has sufficient sources. I had to remove a good portion of the article to achieve this. If anyone has any problems, feel free to add stuff back, but only if you can find a reliable source for it. --Liface 22:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ON WAR AND GREATNESS

What about having a section on military conquests and battles or wars won? In regards to the levels of technological sophistication and how this reflects greatness, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a look at how it is that, for examp


[edit] Murder rate

Shouldn't it be the lowest murder rate of all countries? --Liface 00:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)