From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 Deletion 2 ??? 3 = 4 SWB? 4.1 Resolution of conflict

[edit] Deletion

I've flagged this article for deletion. It doesn't take a genius to look at that list and see many things wrong with it. First of all, the mere suggestion of ranking a subjective concept like satisfaction on a scale is laughable (Who's more satisfied, the billionaire who lost half his fortune in the stock market, or the poor kid in Africa who got to eat dinner for the first time in 4 days? Or is it the serial killer in Columbia who beat the national record for most murders in a week and gets bragging rights to all his junky pals??)

Second, the list itself completely and utterly contradicts real world statistics. It doesn't correlate at all with homicide/crime rates, poverty rates, income equality, civil rights, suicide rates etc.. in short, I could make up a list based on my current knowledge of the world that would be more credible than this one. This is just one big work of fiction.

Sbw01f (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

According to their website:

This data on SWB was compared with data on access to education (UNESCO, 2005), health (United Nations, 2005), and poverty (CIA, 2006). It was found that SWB correlated most strongly with health (.7) closely followed by wealth (.6) and access to basic education (.6). This adds to the evidence that from a global perspective the biggest causes of SWB are poverty and associated variables.

So health, wealth, basic education, poverty.

Now, based on this, let's make a comparison using CIA and HDR data. I'll use an extreme example: Russia (ranked 167th, on par with the likes of Niger, Pakistan, Sudan)) vs. Columbia (ranked 34th, on par with the likes of Germany, UK, Australia).

Wealth - GDP PPP (per capita):

• Russia - 14,600
• Colombia - 7,200

Health - life expectancy:

• Colombia - 72.27
• Russia - 65.87

Education - Adult literacy rate & Human Development Report education index rating:

• Russia - 99.4% (0.956, on par with Germany, Japan, Switzerland)
• Colombia - 92.6% (0.869, on par with Malaysia, Mexico, Jordan)

Poverty - Population living below $1 a day, and population below national poverty line:

• Russia - <2% and 17.8%
• Colombia - 7% and 49.2%

Percent of population suffering from malnutrition:

• Russia - 3%
• Colombia - 14%

And lets not forget that Colombia has the highest homicide and kidnap rates in the entire world. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1410316.stm)

In conclusion, Russia beats Colombia hands down in every single category, except one. It's not even a matter of debate as to which country should be ranked higher than which based on "subjective well-being" as they put it. But somehow, based on these criteria that I just presented, using the same sources, they've ranked Colombia as one of the happiest or "most subjectively well-off" places in the world, on par and even ahead of many first world countries. Further, they ranked Russia as one of the worst or "least subjectively well-off" countries, on par with some of the worst, most miserable places to live on Earth. Make sense to you? Me either.

Basically it comes down to some guy saying "Hey, I think I'll colour this country red because I don't like it, and this country blue because I had a great vacation there one time". This is a joke and has no place on wikipedia. And by the way, living in Canada myself, I can tell you right now that we ain't so happy.

Sbw01f (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The data is based on surveys of life-satisfaction in different nations. It is not based on those criteria you cite above, that is correlations done later. The results have been published. A discussion of only two countries, or your own experience, is not a statistical trend. Regarding Russia, the very high prevalence of alcoholism and suicide certainly speaks against a happy nation.[1][2]Ultramarine (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Surveys are largely subjective and very open to manipulation. In this case, because you make the argument that statistics don't matter one iota in the end, you support my point that this is nothing but blatant pseudoscience where one can control the list completely based on opinion while making it appear to be legit and scientific. I only used Russia and Colombia as examples. Japan, Hungary, and various other countries have equally high suicide rates, so that argument doesn't hold up. And it still doesn't explain how the worlds "kidnap capital" where one is risking his life by simply going for a walk around the block is ranked better than the UK and Germany.

Now in terms of this being suitable for wikipedia, I'll direct you here: Wikipedia:Verifiability

• Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

• Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

• Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

All it takes is a few quick searches to find out that this "Adrian G. White" is not a credible source, nor is he an established expert. His website is indeed a personal website. In fact, if you look at the bottom of his website, you'll see a nice little disclaimer which states: "The views expressed in this document are those of the document owner."

This article is not suitable for an encyclopedia and I'm re-flagging it. Now it's quite clear that you're not going to take "no" for an answer regardless of all the evidence in the world since people who support this sort of pseudoscience are more often than not pushing an agenda, so I'm going to ask that you do not remove the deletion tag, and simply wait for either someone else to make an argument, or for the article to be reviewed.

Scholarly, published material is a verifiable and reliable source. The online article is just a copy of the published material. Many scholars have such copies on their homepages. It has been cited by for example the BBC (and many others): [3][4]. Also, since the deletion is contested, do not put back the speedy deletion template, if you want to continue this, do an ordinary deletion request.Ultramarine (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a speedy delete, it was a regular delete. Speedy delete actually says "speedy delete" in the tag! See: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion

Until we distinguish Adrian G. White as an expert in the field, and until we find out the methodology of the surveys involved and can verify the claims so to be sure it's honest, this is still not up to standards for wikipedia.

Sbw01f (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Read your own link: "*Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."

If you put the deletion tag back again I will report you. Do an ordinary deletion request.Ultramarine (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of falsely accusing me of using "speedy delete", you should have verified exactly what you meant in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbw01f (talk • contribs) 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

Do we need the huge table? Can't we just list the top ten or so? Whispering^(talk/c) 20:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that a little better? --chris 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =

This page is absolutely ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SWB?

Sorry, just want to ask what is SWB that is mentioned on the page? Perhaps a further elaboration on this will be good for those readers who found this article by chance or from search engine. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.91.136.203 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, googled it out already. subjective well-being (SWB). Added it in a minute ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.91.136.203 (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution of conflict

Neutral POV: Although I have a certain sympathy with the user requesting deletion, in that I feel this study is floored, wikipedia DOES LIST disputed and even discredited theories and studies, if they are notable. This study is clearly notable, having been reported by main stream news sources.

When dealing with a controversial article, the advice is at Wikipedia:Controversial_articles. tl;dr, we are to present both points of view, and present references for both. Any study as clearly controversial as this will have replies in the accademic press. I sugest someone who wants to show it is suspect present these, and we can make it clear that it is disputed in the introduction. Certainly it substancially disagrees with other studies such as this one from the reputable Economist Buisness Inteligence Unit [5].

Conversly, I am sure reports, papers, and news articles exist asserting its validity, and these MUST BE GIVEN EQUAL PLACE.

I personaly feel is not appropriate to delete mention of such a notable study, however, such controversy as exists should be clearly noted in the article.

Is this compromize acceptable, or are there further disputes? 86.9.57.55 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)