Talk:International rankings of the United States

Notes

Rankings not based entirely on emperical data are inherently non NPOV. The biases of the organizations determining the rankings should be considered. Bige1977 22:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but I see this article as just a list of facts, so it can't be non NPOV as the data are obtained through research and studies. In other words, they niether support nor condemn the US, such they are NPOV. I created this page as an effort to remove the International rankings section on the US article, thus shortening it in size. A section on International rankings in a country article is not needed as it's not informative.

The format of this article actually comes from International rankings of Singapore, which had been around since July 2005.--Ryz05 22:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My concern is many of these listed articles are really just results of polls and surveys. Ranking nations by land size is a quantifiable data. Defining and ranking abstract terms such as "freedom" and "quality of life" is difficult, especially on an international scale because the definitions and perceptions differ from culture to culture. Much of the findings of these studies are suitable as food for thought in a newspaper like USA today, but I do not think they are scientific, nor encyclopedic. Bige1977 01:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The overall list can remain NPOV if rankings from organizations with a diversity of viewpoints are represented, and the opinion that the U.S. ranks in a certain way is always attributed to a third party rather than being presented as an undisputable fact. Links to articles on the ranking themselves can give readers a way to learn about any controversies about how the rankings were performed. If there are any particularly low-quality rankings, it might be appropriate to drop them from Wikipedia entirely. But I don't think the entire category of social rankings like "freedom" and "quality of life" should be excluded, and they are interesting for encyclopedia readers and meaningful enough to take seriously. Though there may be methodological quibbles and a margin of error that may change a given country's placement slightly, in general the organizations doing the rankings do try to use objective and empirically-based methods. It might be helpful to indicate what the rankings are based on (if it's a survey, GDP stats, or what), or maybe that's detail that need to be left to linked articles. Much of the point of view question is whether or not something like, say, individual freedom, is a good thing that every country should have to the maximum degree possible. Though the organization performing that ranking may believe that, simply presenting a country's ranking isn't necessarily endorsing that viewpoint, it's just telling readers which countries have that attribute to what degree. Some readers may think being too high in that ranking is a bad thing, others may think being too low is bad. -- Beland (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge the two articles Killian441 (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

---

I propose merging United States rankings into this page as they are talking about substantially the same content. Killian441 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition, I will merge the two articles. Killian441 (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rankings table

@Heroeswithmetaphors: Why did you remove the rankings table from this article? Jarble (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

To make it easier to edit the individual entries and keep the data up-to-date. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 21:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International rankings of the United States. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214000000/http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php to https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170224070253/http://pages.eiu.com/rs/783-XMC-194/images/Democracy_Index_2016.pdf to http://pages.eiu.com/rs/783-XMC-194/images/Democracy_Index_2016.pdf

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)