Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Editors should feel free to renominate after a couple of months if they still feel there are problems with the sourcing. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This list is based on the results of a single study, it seems to me this fails WP:N. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The article that the list is based is a paper in the Journal of Economic Growth. The Journal of Economic Growth is a peer-reviewed journal, with one of the highest impact factors in the field of economics. The paper itself, although authored only by Dr. James Fearon, incorporates data from many different authors (please see the Sources section in the paper for a full list of data sources, paper can be found here: http://telematica.politicas.unam.mx/biblioteca/archivos/040107017.pdf). 2) The paper has been cited over 700 times since its publication in 2003 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=james+fearon+ethnic+diversity&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44). I dont think the paper can be considered Dr. Fearon's point of view, since he relied on so many different sources (which he references) and since his paper was peer reviewed. 3) There are many lists that are based on the results of a single study, examples, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Innovation_Index_(Boston_Consulting_Group), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Failed_States_Index, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-Life_IndexI am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Passing peer review doesn't mean that the peers doing the reviewing necessarily agreed with the paper's conclusion or are co-authors in any sense. It just means that they vouched for the integrity of the author's methodology and agreed that the paper was a constructive contribution to the field. I suspect you believe it's far more rare to have a paper published in a peer reviewed journal than it actually is. postdlf (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. 01:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 01:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure it is a fine paper, but the entry is based on a single paper. If other articles are based on single papers I think they ought to go too, but, the existence of other stuff is not an argument at AFD.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * postdlf, I just got my PhD, so I do know that publishing in a peer reviewed journal is not a rare thing :) But like you mention, it does mean that the research is credible and contributes to the field. However, in this case there is also the matter of 700+ citations, which is a rare thing and implies that this research is seen widely by the academic community as useful and reliable. I am not insisting that this list be the only one present on the page, we can certainly add more once we find credible ones (see for example the lists for GDP per capita on various basis). I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 711 papers cited the one the list is based one. If even one of them questioned its conclusions, you would be justified in asking for modifications or even removal of the list. But as of now, I dont see how one can conclude that nobody apart from the author agrees on the list, when 711 papers have cited that paper.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Without a discussion of why the paper was cited or for what purpose, or whether those 711 citing papers substantively discussed his cultural and diversity indexes, or whether those citing papers repeated this table in whole or in part, throwing that number out there is meaningless in and of itself. So try harder to dig beneath the surface. Do you have an argument for making an article about the cultural and diversity indexes (i.e., how are they measured, critiques of the methods, impact of the rankings, etc.), or a substantive argument that this particular list is somehow a notable standard and ranking? postdlf (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Technically, it fails WP:GNG (which says 'reliable sources' in plural for a reason). Not so technically, the article represents such a list as a commonly accepted list, which is (lacking other references) it is not; it is just one study, even if summarizing other studies. Mere number of citations is not a valid argument, as some (and even all) citations may be arguing with the results of the study, and reference it exactly to argue with it. Bottom line: unless addition references are provided - delete. Ipsign (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

An excerpt from a paper by a group of different authors:"The raw data originally used by Easterly and Levine (1997) come from the Atlas Narodov Mira, a compilation of ehtnolinguistic groups present in 1960 based on historical linguistic origin. A first weakness of this data is that linguistic heterogeneity does not necessarily coincide with ethnic heterogeneity. For instance, most Latin American countries are relatively homogenous in terms of language but less so in terms of “ethnicity” or “race”. Fearon (2003) and Alesina et al. (2003) have compiled various measures of ethnic heterogeneity which try to tackle the fact that the difference amongst groups manifests itself in different ways in different places. The two classifications are constructed differently. Alesina et al. (2003) do not take a stand on what ethnicity (or language or religion) are more salient than others and adopt the country breakdown suggested by original sources, mainly the Encyclopedia Britannica (See the Appendix for more details). Fearon (2003) instead is trying to construct the ”right list” of ethnic groups which ”depends on what people in the country identify as the most socially rel- evant ethnic groupings” (page 198). This approach has the advantage of being closer to what the theory would want and the disadvantage of having to make judgement calls (or adopt others’ judgement calls) about what is the ”right list”. The sources used by Fearon (2003) are carefully described in his paper ..." Here is my proposal based on this excerpt: 1) I will add the list developed by Alesina et al. (2003) to the current page. 2) This way we will have two lists on the page, one corresponding to the direct data, and a more sophisticated one, closer to what conflict theory would want. 3) This way we will have multiple points of view and multiple references on the page. I hope people realize the importance of having such a list on wikipedia, both for students of conflict theory and the general public. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What say, people ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Give me three more days, I am in the middle of moving. I will add the data by Alesina et al and more references. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember WP:SYN when you do. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The page with multiple lists and more reference is now up. Comments will be appreciated.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This looks like two or three good and worthwhile pieces of economics research converted into a Wikipedia article with no secondary sources. Which means that, just to take a couple of flaws as examples, Fearon's measures of "Ethnic diversity index" and "Cultural diversity index" seem to have been accepted uncritically, and Fearon's unaccountable failure to include the United States or Canada in his list of countries has been perpetuated in the Wikipedia list .  It seems to me that we would have a good and worthwhile topic here if there's been further, subsequent work by other scholars that's critiqued and added to these studies, and could be incorporated.  It also seems to me that in the absence of such further work, what we have falls short of a reliable encyclopaedia article.  It should be incubated or userfied for improvement.— S Marshall  T/C 08:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, both the USA and Canada are on the Fearon list. Please take a closer look. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ...I see ctrl+F looking for "United States" was insufficient; it's called "USA" in the Fearon list and "United States" in the other one. Stricken the invalid portion of my remark, which (you'll note) does leave some exceedingly grave concerns.— S Marshall  T/C 18:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry S Marshall, I dont see what your 'grave concerns' are. Please give some examples. Why do you think Fearon's list is accepted uncritically ? In fact, both the lists are criticized in the excerpt I have quoted from the other article by Alesina.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The article now has more sources, but I don't see any secondary sources. It is now a case of WP:SYN I am afraid. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dbrodbeck, there are two articles by Alesina used as references. The one by Alesina and Ferrara qualifies as a secondary source for Fearon's work. I need to find a reference to Alesina et al's paper which does not involve Alesina. Am I right ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 *  Comment Keep I don't want to vote delete because the article is as good as, and as well-sourced, as many on WP. On the other hand, I have to say that as it is now it is almost meaningless to the average reader. (I'm taking myself as average, educated but not an expert in this field.) So I can't really vote to keep either. No real reason to delete, so keep. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On one list the USA is in between Guatemala and Georgia, on the other between Nicaragua and Georgia (in one aspect). What does that mean, and how are we going to use the information? Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kitfoxe. The basic thrust of the article is as follows: "Fractionalization measures are computing as the probability that two randomly drawn individuals (from a country) are not from the same group (ethnic, religious, or whatever the criterion is)" In the Fearon list, cultural fractionalization is estimated imperfectly by a measure of similarity between languages, using 1 = same language, and 0 = they speak languages that are completely unrelated. So, the short answer to your question is that as per the Fearon list, the probability of two random individuals belonging to different ethnic groups is higher for USA than Georgia. Of course, this emphasizes linguistic variation more than racial and other variations. In the Alesina list, the fractionalization is computed directly from whatever the Encyclopedia Brittanica lists for ethnic groups. This is more coarse and biased by how the Britannica chooses to list ethnic groups. For example, consider India, Pakistan and USA. The major Christian denominations in the US are treated as different religions (eg Protestant and Catholic) whereas India is more than about 80% Hindu, so by this reckoning it looks less diverse. For Pakistan they probably distinguish between Sunni and Shia as different religions. However, there are many denominations and castes within Hindus, and the Sunni-Shia difference is present within Indian Muslims as well, both of which the EB doesnt list, so they just dont get factored in and India ends up listing as less religiously diverse than both the US and Pakistan, a statement that many scholars would dispute. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Kitfoxxe, are you satisfied with the above explanation ? Let me know. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you. I understand the concept of the lists much better now. I still don't see how useful they are. Especially since, as you mentioned, the standards are different in different nations.  Besides that some nations have only a few thousand people while others hundreds of millions, plus differences in area.  So how can the ratios have the same meaning or value in all? Or could even be compared in a meaningful way.  But still this is not a reason to delete the article if the topic is notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Kitfoxxe, the standards are of course different, and indeed economics/sociology are imperfect sciences. What this list does is give the reader an idea of how the composition of different countries vary. So one can clearly see that countries like South Korea, Japan, Norway, China, Australia are similar in the regard that they are not very fractionalized. On the other hand, countries like Uganda, Liberia and Togo are very fractionalized, which can give the reader some hints as to why they face internal conflicts and political instability. The exact ranks themselves dont matter that much, but the rough position of the countries on the graph of diversity tells us a bit about the kind of politics we can expect there. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I think we (the USA) were less diverse when we had our Civil War. England too. Japan also had civil wars. And China has different languages and religions, even if they all call themselves Chinese. (Also civil wars there too, and in least-diverse Korea.)Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I voted to keep. No reason not to include this information on WP, even if "I don't like it" very much.  Other people might find it interesting or useful, if only to see the limitations. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * All, I have added secondary sources and criticisms of both lists. I have also added a brief explanation of what fractionalization is. Thank you for your inputs, I think the article is much better referenced and presented thanks to your questions. Please take another look at it and let me know if it is satisfactory, or if it needs more work. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey all, just a reminder. The page is ready with all the references, criticisms and explanations. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 08:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

 I am still on the fence, but I can say for sure the article now is much better. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:LISTN, WP:GNG (the few sources cited by the article). Inclusion elsewhere would be WP:UNDUE. The information is sourced and appears to have been discussed in reliable sources. I wikilinked to the 2 topics, per WP:BOLDTITLE and note that perhaps the article should be moved elsewhere for further clarity. -- Trevj (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Dbrodbeck, can you be a bit more precise ? How can the article be improved, and what wikipedia guidelines does it not adhere to ? Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.