Talk:The World Factbook

"Fact" Book?

The only facts that this book contains are the names of the countries and where they are located. Everything is is politicized and not factual, especially in the area of history and demographics. Come on, it is put out by the CIA for crying out loud! The CIA is the most sinister branch of the government that is NOT bound by law. They more or less work on behalf of the most sinister and sneaky government in the world. Most people in th eUS don't believe the government, so why believe that even sneakier and low-down CIA "fact" book? Besides, how are they a SOURCE for all nation's business? The sources should be those nations first, but clearly each country listed on Wikipedia should have multiple sources, not just the CIA as the bible. To rely only on the CIA for this site almost makes me think it is run by the CIA!--71.235.94.254 05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You claim that "everyting is politicized and not factual". Could you please provide SPECIFIC examples of countries where the demographic or historical data in not accurate and provide the "accurate" info that you believe should be in its place.

Oh and please cite you more accurate sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.102.195.118 (talk) 13:12, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

The CIA is a perfectly acceptable source for information, as that is one of their primary goals - gathering intel. Please don't let your anti-american bias overwhelm your logic User 71.235.94.254. Travis Cleveland (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, CIA is as good source as KGB, or MI6. Not biased at any direction, but always maintaining strict neutrality. This Travis guy seems quite funny for me, actually :) If anybody questions any information from US government sources, you have to be anti-american :) Perhaps Travis' bias is overwhelming his logic? Woden (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Travis Cleveland, you are an idiot. The CIA is the executive branches hit squad that masquerades as an "intelligence" agency, and the "intel" they do gather is sub-par by all accounts. I'm an american and even I know this. Do a little research so you know what the hell your talking about. INO Exodus (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that there is little info out there on the accuracy of the World Fact Book. It is cited in many discussions of international economic data--for example, google "EU inflation rate" and every site uses the WFB as the original source. But only on the most recent 2008 update do they even have a separate entry for "European Union". The WFB doesn't cite it's own sources---hopefully they are better than the info on Iraq's WMD's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.33.115 (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I for one, do not greatly trust the Factbook. I don't know how many deliberate politically-driven inaccuracies it contains (although I'd be surprised if there were none), but there are certainly several errors. For example, the UK administrative divisions bit (admittedly quite complicated) contains at least 4 mistakes (e.g. "Ile of Wight") and inconsistencies. And that's for the UK, one of the USA's closest allies! Imagine how accurate the pages for N.Korea or Iran are... Bazonka (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bazonka, I agree with ya on the WFB Factbook and reliability. While a good primer, I would not trust it as my only source for info, like I wouldn't trust any encyclopedia as my source. As for errors, there are many. For example, the Factbook has the Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands as the "UK Representative" [1]; this has not been corrected - even though I have told them of it. Besides errors, there are also some POV areas. For example, users on Albanian message boards have complained about the Kosovo entry: [2], [3] and this guy has complained about the British Indian Ocean Territory entry: [4]. In short, we should use lots of care and discretion with the Factbook as we do with the 1911EB. - Thanks, Hoshie 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As with wikipedia it is a good first base source as long as the reader understands its nature--Rowen (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, am amused at the Factbook's claims on religion in Denmark. It doesn't list all the non-religious, but lumps them under the Evangelican-Lutheran Church. This information is easily checked, and I wonder if it's some sort of denial of atheism or irreligion on the CIA's part... --90.184.22.222 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You're easily amused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.123.76 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Its a fact book seen through the googles of CIA, and for that reason you can bet your money it represents the same point of view and logic which led to the invasion of Iraq. Also, take a look at the history in middle/south America (from NON US sources!) to see how neutral they are....--Nabo0o (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a dead discussion and as with every single source out there, the WFB represents the point of view of the authors, in this case, the United States of America. When one looks at sources that are not US sources, they are bound to have a slant that is different. It is truth by consensus, in this case the consensus of the CIA and the USA, and the USA recognizes Kosovo as a country, as such, an official publication of the United States will have the slant of the United States. If you looked at a publication of Serbia and their WFB, then of course it would not have a publication for Kosovo. A non US source will maintain the sliver of POV that it was generated from, without the shadow of a doubt. So what if one person complains, no one will ever satisfy everyone on the planet or everyone who looks at it. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 00:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the 1911EB is 99 years old. The WFB never too far out of date, certainly not 99 years. We should just be chill and use discretion, as with basically every source. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 00:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But please make it know that the CIA is not uncontroversial, and that it does not represent a point of view which is close to neutral. --Nabo0o (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Long section

The Oddities and controversies section seems rather long. Should it be shortened? RJFJR 15:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Since my last edit, i've removed the Isle of Man and trimmed the Yugoslavia part a bit. - Thanks, Hoshie 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not add something about the strange definitions of political systems they have? No defintions are provided and their use seems somewhat arbitrary.

2007 edition

It should be noted that the 2007 version caved in to Gaullist fiction by deleting the French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Réunion entries and putting their information in the "France" page. —71.215.217.161 02:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to work on this soon with a little less POV. - Thanks, Hoshie 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have added a few words about this in the article. - Thanks, Hoshie 12:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Link audit

I have just done a clearing of links. Here we go:

The GPO links are good, but I don't think it's good to have a dupe set of links to previous versions isn't helpful.

To me, these links:

• On stephansmap.org: The CIA World Factbook accessible by location and date range; covers the years 2001 -- 2006. All Factbook entries are tagged with "cia". Requires graphical browser with javascript.

The idea of integrating the Factbook into stephansmap.org was to provide a different way of reading the Factbook -- first by selecting region, then by selecting a time-frame. That's why I added the link to the wikipedia article. I still think it is an interesting presentation. (And not spam) I'll leave it to someone else to put the link back on the wikipedia page though. Stephanwehner

I took a second look at the link. You have done well with your projet. I feel this adds a new dimension to the article! It also beats reading a bunch of flat HTML pages. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• CIA World Factbook as Flash factbook site

seem to be Spam. They look interesting but they don't add to the article.

As for this link:

• Authorama 2000 CIA World Factbook as XHTML1.0 (easily readable, no images, device-independent)

We already have a "device friendly" that's current. Why do we need an older one?

- Thanks, Hoshie 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Passed. Congratulations. :) I can't think of many ways to improve the article itself--It's really good as it is. One thing that you should consider addressing is the redlinks. It's not part of the article itself and I'm not faulting you for that, but it doesn't look good when there's a number of redlinks for organizations for which there is no article. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

increase in number

This week the CIA added entries for Saint Barthelemy and Saint Martin. I have updated the figures in the article by two. The CIA itself hasn't noted this yet, so there is no source (outside the profiles themselves). I hope this is well.- Thanks, Hoshie 02:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been two weeks since the addition and there is no progress on the entries and no note on the front page. For the purposes of WP:V, I have rolled backed the numbers to where they were in January; that number has a source. - Thanks, Hoshie 06:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a note now for Saint Barthelemy and Saint Martin but also a few other changes Iles Eparses has been dropped and East Timor is now Timor-Leste-- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 21:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

These have now been added, except for St.-Martin and St.-Barth, mainly due to the fact that their edition to the Factbook seems to be obvious. - Thanks, Hoshie 07:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

More info. I just checked the World entry and it gives the number I was expecting. I've used this to update the article.- Thanks, Hoshie 11:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

HTTPS only access?

Since when is the Factbook https-only? Anyone know?

Even the Google cache info on it reflects HTTPS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccabem (talk • contribs) 21:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

== this website stinks you sall be able to find facts on a pecific place!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.8.75 (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-reference

Many Internet sites, including Wikipedia, use information and images from the CIA World Factbook.

This is a self reference, and as such, should be removed. This would, however, detract from the article; so instead I believe the reference to Wikipedia should be replaced with a reference to another website. --Muna (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been removed. - Thanks, Hoshie 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I want Buy it

I m citizen of Estonia and i m in USA now. I leave in august 13. I want buy CIA World factbook. Can you help me(Say to me where i can buy it)? My email is Harri.Puskar@gmail.com. Sorry if i interupt discussion. I stay in North Carolina(in Garner-5 miles to Raleigh) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.108.9 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

From the article:

“

The official printed version is sold at cost by the Government Printing Office and National Technical Information Service.

”

(The reference is here) Oxygen (believe) 02:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan description

The following appears in the article:

"The name "Republic of China" is not listed as Taiwan's "official name" under the "Government" section,[27] due to U.S. acknowledgement of Beijing's One-China policy according to which there is one China - the People's Republic of China - and Taiwan is a part of it."

The cite doesn't seem to support this statement, nor does US policy (which is to accept the "one China" policy without saying that the PRC is the legitimate gov't of all of China. Am I missing something?LedRush (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

world food shortage

Is the world population growing ata faster pace than food or grain yeilds can keep up with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.199.166 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the correct forum for that question, unless it was a claim either made or refuted by the fact book.LedRush (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Shia

The factbook doesn't acknowledge the existence of Shia Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Just awesome. --138.67.159.111 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WFB gives the population of Saudi Arabia as "100% Muslim". Your silly little complaint is bogus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.123.76 (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean they don't accept the existence of sunni's in Saudi Arabia either? --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 03:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Shias and Sunnis are both Muslims either way, so the "100% Muslim" conclusion is correct. Spartan198 (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It January 2009 and the factbook has not been updated as of yet.

for those who visit the factbook,you know that it updated twice a month.Usually around the 5-10 of a month,and then towards the end of the month,usually 18-22 of a particular month.So far it has not been updated since Dec 18,2008(my 22nd birthday).We're almost Januray 9,2009 and the factbook has not been updated.It is time for the 2009 world factbook.Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.105.216 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

swear word in heading

The third heading in this article has a swear word in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.39.162 (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Say what?

"which continues to regard Kosovo as its own territory, and other countries." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.106.132 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

recent edit: print, "at cost", iphone

Hello all,

I've recently edited this article to update the year of the cover image. I have also cleared up the status. Instead of being "no longer available in a print edition", it appears that last year the CIA stopped printing the Factbook and handed it over the printing to the Gov't Printing Office (in fact, the both the GPO and NTIS have it in stock; see [5] and [6]). Because of this, I've changed a few pronouns. I have also removed the words "at cost" since we don't really know how the price is set. There was an iPhone link in the EL's. This has been removed as there are at last count, four different vendors offering the Factbook in the App Store. If we list one, we would have to list them all. Hope this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie 03:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

uik,hn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.141.194 (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Factual => Weasel Words and bad argument

Re: "...it can be argued the country has never been independent since there is an arguable legitimate succession of states, systems and entities from the Norman Conquest, 1066." It is arguable??? Either it is or it isn't! If foreign invasion constitutes a loss of independance then Britain has been occupied since Roman times albeit by successive invading groups and their legacy cultures. Simarly America remains non-independant because while the colonists revolted against their motherland the colonists decendants still remain in power. 118.208.53.97 (talk)

dead site ??

Hi

I just did a db check on a page and it is telling me that the CAI factbook , and the CIA site, are returning server not found messages

I cannot access the site locally either

Anyone know anything about this ?

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Try this link. − Glenn L (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Cases not includes on "Disputes international"

Should there not be a section on that issue? As an example, the Netherlands do officially not have have a such problem. Never the less, President Hugo Chavez has questioned the Netherlands' authority over the ABC islands. Bit strange how the CIA has picked up the existance of a pulpmill in Fray Bentos, Uruguay. The CIA have even mentioned that the former Prince Hans Adam of FL, felt that he was to own what is 2 pc the size of the Czeck Republic. But if Hugo says something on certain islands, the Dutch still have disputes equivalent to "none". BTW Did'nt Britain have an obligation to say sorry for transporting nukes down to the South Atlantic? --82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture refresh problem ?

Brassys-WFB-cover.jpg shows a 2008 cover while the "current" cover in Wiki Commons is the 2010 one... could not find the reason why the new cover is not appearing (file link is OK). Can a wiki admin help ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.248.13 (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

There are some inconsistencies with the facts as presented in the CIA Factbook and other reliable sources of information. Three quite striking examples are:

• Geoscience Australia gives the area of Australia as 7 692 024 square km [7] whereas the CIA Factbook gives 7,682,300 sq km. The difference is greater than the area of Cyprus!
• The French Government gives the area of France as 543,965 sq km [8] whereas the CIA gives France 7,535 sq km more (551,500 sq km [9]). That's an extra area that is close to the size of Corsica!
• New Zealand Travel gives the area of New Zealand as 266,200 sq km [10] whereas the CIA Factbook gives 267,710 sq km [11]. That's a difference of more than 1,500 sq km.

Country	CIA Area	Local source	web address of local source	difference
Australia	7,682,300 sq km	7 692 024 sq km	http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/area-aus-states-territories.jsp	9,724 sq km
Metropolitan France	551,500 sq km	543,965 sq km	http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/espaces_dedies.php3?id_rubrique=159	7,535 sq km
New Zealand	267,710 sq km	266,200 sq km	http://www.newzealand.com/travel/about-nz/key-facts/key-facts-natural-environment.cfm	1,510 sq km

Other inconsistencies are less significant, but curious:

• The Fiji Government gives the total land area as 18,333 sq km [12] whereas the CIA Factbook gives the land area as 18,274 sq km [13].
• The Irish Republic gives the area as 70,282 sq km [14] whereas the CIA Factbook gives its area as 70,273 sq km [15]
• The Swiss Government gives the area of Switzerland as 41,285 sq km [16] while the CIA figure is 41,277 sq km [17].
• The Netherlands Government gives the area of the Netherlands as 41,526 sq km; [18] the CIA gives them 41,543 sq km, [19] 17 sq km more.

In tabular form:

Country	CIA Area	Local source	web address of local source	difference
Fiji	18,274 sq km	18,333 sq km	http://www.fiji.gov.fj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=645&Itemid=196	59 sq km
Irish Republic	70,273 sq km	70,282 sq km	http://www.gov.ie/en/essays/geography.html	9 sq km
Switzerland	41,277 sq km	41,285 sq km	http://www.swissworld.org/en/geography/swiss_geography/facts_and_figures/	8 sq km
Netherlands	41,543 sq km	41,526 sq km	http://www.minbuza.nl/en/You_and_the_Netherlands/About_the_Netherlands	17 sq km

These relatively small differences suggest that the CIA information may not be the most up-to-date. Michael Glass (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC) However, in other cases, for instance, Canada, Denmark, Belgium and South Africa, the figures are the same. Michael Glass (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to assume those other sources are more accurate. In truth, differences are common in general, and you'll find disagreements among sources from any one country. Saros136 (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not when the information is drawn from government websites. I would expect that the French Government would know the size of their country. I would also reckon that Geoscience Australia would know their job. Michael Glass (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC) NB I have added information and rearranged the material above after Saros136 made his comment. Michael Glass (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the part of the FAQ I had read specifically on area, but it said the Factbook uses many sources, and use the one judged to be the most reliable. They shouldn't be criticized just because they don't always think the governments give the best figures. Saros136 (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In some cases, there could be differences over what lands or territories count. Saros136 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't apply to any of the examples that I have supplied above. There are no border disputes that would have an impact on the size of France, Australia or New Zealand or of any of the other countries that I have noted. Could you suggest any reason that would make us give more credence to the CIA Factbook than to Geoscience, Australia on the area of Australia? Could you suggest any reason that would make the French Government underestimate the size of their country by an area almost as large as the island of Corsica? If there are inconsistencies in some figures but not in others from the CIA Factbook, can you suggest any reason that might explain this? Michael Glass (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Factual

This section needs to be discussed, it quotes two incidents of irregularities of figures given in CIA Fact book. One is a difference of settlers in Israel and the other a history lesson on the founding of the UK. These seem to be POV and really don't need to be listed. Please post your thoughts, as I am prepared to discuss this before removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Jacob805 (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the section on the British Government could be rewritten to make it more neutral and factual in tone. The section on the number of settlers in Israel is more important. The stinging criticism of Chuck Holmes, foreign director of the US National Public Radio is worth recording. However, I think the article would benefit from another independent and authoritative estimate of the numbers. For example, the number given by the State Department is 250,000 Jews in the West Bank and an additional 180,000 in East Jerusalem [20]. At the moment the CIA Factbook says that the population figures for the West Bank are being reviewed, [21].

In all, I believe that the wording could be examined and revised, but I don't think that there is anything wrong in principle, about criticising the accuracy of the CIA Factbook. Michael Glass (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of trimming down or deleting any POV/OR stuff about the UK, Fiji, and Australia and keeping the bit about the number of Jews in the occupied territories since it caused NPR to issue a retraction. - Thanks, Hoshie 08:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not have any OR/POV problem with the UK or the Fiji and Australia areas part. But I object to the area criticism, because disagreements between sources are common. Different parts of the same governments even give different numbers at times. In fact, the Fiji page itself gives two different numbers. Of course in some cases the Factbook will make clear-cut mistakes, but so does every non-fiction book. Saros136 (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Territorial issues and controversies

I noticed the Factbook name change in name from East Timor to Timor-Leste is under "Territorial Issues and Controversies". I suspect the entry should be deleted from the "controversies" section as there appears to be no issue about the country name. The full country name is "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste", commonly translated into English as East Timor. Was/is, there any issue or controversy? Aussiejohn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC).

Timor-Lests paragraph removed in the absence of any reason why it should be kept. Aussiejohn (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The real old versions

Dies anyone know if it the version publihed before about 1980 are available online, perhaps even the then secret Version published during the sixties?--Antemister (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The size of the United States

The size of the United States is stated as:

9372610km² (1989-1996) 9629091km² (1997-2003) 9631418km² (2004-2006) 9826630km² (2007-2011)

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.87.154 (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)