Talk:The World Factbook/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Old stuff

Another of its idiosyncrasies is that it is hosted on a secure server, accessible by https. Is this to discourage hackers? To block it from being accessed by people in certain countries?, for example, isn't hosted on a secure server.

There have been substantial changes to the World Fact Book since the last update. Many of the pages referenced in the article have been updated as of January 27, 2005. For example Tiawan now has it's own entry and many of the maps are .gif files not the high quality .jpg or .tif.

Looks like there needs to be considerable re-write about The World Fact book. I'm not up to doing this myself. Too many changes that are not covered in the main entry here.

--Wjbean 16:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The CIA World Fact Book has maps that are apparently public domain. Should we use these on Wikipedia as well as the text? We could put these on the Wikipedia server without too much trouble and load them from there. - TS

I wouldn't mind at all; the only reason I didn't post them already was that some of them are rather large; they go from just under 40k for some of the island countries to 238k for Indonesia and 279k for the world map. Even the small flags shown at the top of each country's main page are around 14k. Those are all .jpgs; I haven't yet tried saving them in different formats or at different compressions. But I do think it would be valuable to have them online.

JPG is a totally inappropriate format for these; they would be of much higher quality and similar size as PNGs, but converting them from their present web form won't work: they'll just become bigger with the same low quality they have now. Once they've been though the JPG lossy conversion there's no way to get the lost data back. They need to be rescanned from a paper copy and re-encoded as PNG. I don't have a copy of the paper myself, nor do I know what it would cost, but I could do the scanning work if I got my hands on one. --Lee Daniel Crocker

Actually the ones on the CIA site now look fine, I think. Take a look to see if you agree; maybe they can just be converted to PNG and used as-is.

Nope, they are still JPG and they look awful. Even the icons on the page are JPG--those webmasters really don't have a clue. Converting them to PNG from those JPGs will just make them even worse. They really need to be rescanned from a paper edition into PNG originals which will be clear and sharp and probably compress even better than the JPGs on the CIA's site. --LDC

The CIA World Factbook contains uses non-standard country codes and currency codes. I think we should use the ISO standard ones, which are most common on the internet anyway. Thus the FIPS codes in the World factbook entries should be converted to ISO standard codes when wikifying the article. -- Simon J Kissane

I don't know what you mean. Can you give an example?

Please see article FIPS two-letter country codes. For example, BO maps to different countries in FIPS and ISO 3166 codings. -- The Anome

Does this information belong in the ARTICLE:

"Actually, says Federal law prohibits use of the words "Central Intelligence Agency," the initials "CIA," the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency. Given that we are willing to use the words "Central Intelligence Agency," it seems to me that we should be willing to use the seal, since the restrictions are the same."

It seems to me that it should be here in Talk. --Zoe

Well, at any rate I've removed the speculation that we should be able to use the seal--I don't think anyone would argue that our use of the name will be "reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency." We write about everyone deserving an entry, and aren't much concerned whether they approve or not. We're an encyclopedia, and that's what encyclopedias do. Cheers, Koyaanis Qatsi, Saturday, July 6, 2002

I'd be interested to hear ideas on how Wikipedia pages whose text derives almost entirely from the CIA WFB could incorporate updates or corrections they make. It strikes me there's danger when grabbing large external texts that it just becomes too much trouble to check these sources regularly, and then to amend Wikipedia's entry suitably (which by then may well have had several Wiki edits). Can anyone conceive automatic methods that might work? -- Laurence

Copyright on CIA World Factbook?

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump

I was going to They have a ton of books online. While browsing their copy of the CIA World Factbook, they had this following info:

TITLE: The World Factbook.
PUBLISHED: Washington, D.C.: Central Intelligence Agency, 2002. ISBN: 1-58734-113-1.
CITATION: The World Factbook. Washington, D.C.: Central Intelligence Agency, 2002;, 2002. [Date of Printout].
ONLINE ED.: Published April 2003 by; © Copyright, Inc. (Terms of Use).

As you see below, it appears that is claiming a copyright on the Factbook! Does this overide the CIA's declaration that the World Factbook is public domain?

-- hoshie

IANAL, but that's basically a collection copyright claimed on their particular published edition. It may or may not have any validity if you, say, copy text from their pages without keeping their unique and creative page formatting. It certainly is irrelevant for material copied straight off of the CIA's web site. --Brion 18:18 27 May 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I just wish would be clear on what they claim rights to... -- hoshie
Does Bartleby actually have rights to any of the stuff up there? Isn't almost all of it actually public domain stuff? john 08:46 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
AFAIK, Bartleby ether uses PD works or licenses them from copyright holders like everyone else. BTW, if I want the Factbook, I get it from the CIA. Bartleby has too much noise if you know what I mean... -- hoshie

Editions of Factbook

  • According to the Web site:
    • The hardcopy represents information as of Jan. 1st of the year on the cover.
    • Various firsts (well, the two listed since 1970) involving either medium have come in June, tho the first (hardcover, classified) edition was August of 1962.
  • The article Wikipedia:Status of the porting of the CIA World Factbook noted the new year of the on-line edition
    • in December 2002 (2002 edition) and
    • between April and Aug of 2003 (2003 edition)
    • And as of today, in Feb 2004, it is still the 2003 edition that is on line at [1]

(Hence it sounds to me as if each edition of the online version applies until the middle of the following year, tho it gets updated throughout that edition's term.)

... and As of 2003 Links

No big deal, except that at least 6 articles on Cocos (Keeling) Islands use a pipe-hidden as of 2003 link, well-meaningly, in lines reading

Information from the CIA World Factbook, 2003 edition.

And we are months away from being able to turn them from 2003-edition references to 2004 ones.

These six are orphans, i think, and may be doomed. But whatever their future, there is no telling how many other as-of-linking pages like them are out there: only the "first" 500 as of 2003-linking pages can be displayed by What links here. Any in addtion to these six are lurking beyond that veil, also awaiting updating, and also acting as part of the crowd standing in the way of updating those even further down the list. In fact, there could be enuf of them to be, at sometime before June, the only thing keeping non-Factbook as of 2003 pages even further on in the list from being considered for updates.

I propose to create a redirect, in the article space, to CIA World Factbook 2003 edition. (I've already put this info at Wikipedia talk:Status of the porting of the CIA World Factbook as well.) It will serve an analogous purpose to as of 2003, without coming due 6 months before it can be acted upon. Those who watch this article should be aware of all this, IMO. --Jerzy 16:19, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

Try {{msg:2003}}. It's got a link to this main article, deals with the 'as of 2003' "what links to this" problem, and creates a page where we can easily track which articles have been tagged to the 2003 Factbook. It can also be updated for later versions of the Factbook. - Jonel 03:13, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Despite the fact that many websites use information and data from the "World Factbook", i have a tendency to believe that the data may be biased,since it's been devised and collected by US agency and researchers. What do you think about this? I am sure that there are more balanced factbooks about countries out ther(either websites or printed materials).Isn't Wikipedia all about bringing different perspectives--i.e. from South/Third World research institutes, as well? — Rageangainstthemashine 01:58, Jul 28, 2004

For the most part, the CIA factbook bases its information on material collected by other governments or international agencies- it's not like they collect literacy or life expectancy data of their own.
This is not so much a bias as an indication that the data is often not very consistent. — 15:05, Aug 13, 2004

-: Why would the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza Strip BE included as Israeli land? The comment was posited as though it was a glaring miscalculation of the CIA not to list it as Israeli land. Odd H. Rap Brown

-: I think quite a few of the examples are in fact controversial. I don't see e.g. why they shouldn't include an entry on the European Union. No book like this can be published without taking a side on many controversial issues - a sign of good quality is to me the indication of the controverse. thamane

It's not "biased", because the work is meant to relate official U.S. government data on nations, regimes, and (especially) transnational conflicts. It's not MEANT to be unbiased or used as a primary source. As long as one understands this when using it, one should be all right. As noted above, the basic data (life expectancy, etc.) is based on the best data available internationally. It is really on transnational issues that one must be slightly wary of the Factbook. Then again, one must be equally wary of the Wikipedia for other reasons. Neither source should be used as a primary source in conducting research, but as a source of basic information they're both usually acceptable. Note that in the F.A.Q., the Factbook writes that "Territorial occupations/annexations not recognized by the United States Government are not shown on US Government maps." --Xinoph 18:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You can't just "assume" there is a bias...get a citation and add an section if it is that important to you Travis Cleveland 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

crediting source of information

Shouldn't any articles using information from the Factbook contain some sort of source information? There are many articles that do not. Is there an existing template that could be used, similar to say Template:bioguide? olderwiser 15:15, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Answering my own question, there is Template:factbook which can be added by inserting {{factbook}} to an article and which currently consists of the following text: This article incorporates information from The World Factbook, which is in the public domain. olderwiser 15:32, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I see many references to the book (whether that was with that template I don't know, by the way). Maybe a warning should be given where the book is used as a source, considering Xinoph's remark in the above thread that the info is not meant to be unbiased. Se also my remark/question below about the International Court of Justice, whch had me scratching my head for a bit. Relying too much on this book can have very misleading results. DirkvdM 20:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

CIA/Diego Garcia link

On 24 March, User:Gregis17 deleted, a link critical of The World Factbook. I feel this is unfair because there are people who don't like the Factbook and it appears this guy linked is one of them. - Hoshie/Crat 23:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The article seems more critical of the CIA, the British and American governments, and the military status of the island, rater than the World Factbook per se. I think the link is also heavily biased and does contain some falsehoods, therefore it is not an appropiate link here, and should be removed. Astrotrain 11:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
What are the falsehoods in Hoshie's link? Please name some of them. --romanm (talk) 16:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • There are a few falsehoods in the article:

- firstly the House of Lords can block non-finance bills for upto 3 years, and it is rare for the Commons to use the Parliament Act to override the Lords - the UK does have a constitution, although not a codified one - the UK House of Commons cannot vote to keep itself in power without elections, because the monarch can disolve Parliament at any time, and has the power to with-hold consent for any UK Act of Parliament - the court case in question ruled that it could not enforce the repatriation of the expelled citizens of BIOT.

The article does highlight the disgraceful treatment of these people. However in the UK, it is possible to expel people from their homes via complulsary purchase orders for example. I believe the court only sided with the islanders because they were removed from the entire island.

In any case, the article should not be linked from here because: - it only mentions the World Factbook briefly - the article is an attack on the US and UK govts, and the British constitution, which are not the subject of this article - if you feel it shoud be linked, maybe from the Diego Garcia or the BIOT page. However, it is basically an extreme and biased attack, and is not enlightening in any way. Astrotrain 10:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

You have me convinced, Astrotrain. I'm removing the link if I hasn't been removed already. BTW, the treatment of the Ilois/Chagossians was a huge disgrace, but that is a different matter for another day :) - Hoshie/Crat 07:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Can anyone tell me the font that the factbook uses for country names, mountain ranges, rivers and seas? I'm translating maps for the Welsh Wicipedia.

Thanks, --Adam7davies 21:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

International Court of Justice

While working on the Politics of the Netherlands article, I organised the list of international organisations the country is part of and noticed the International Court of Justice was not in it. Which I found odd, especially considering that the Netherlands is where it's located. I got the impression that the list was copied from the CIA world factbook, so I looked there, and indeed, there was the exact same list (see [2] under 'International organization participation').

My first reaction was "Ah, that will probably be because the USA doesn not recognise the Court." But then I noticed it is mentioned as an abbreviation under 'legal system'; "accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations." Do I misunderstand something here? Is there a logical reason not to mention the court under 'International organization participation'? For comparison, it does list the International Criminal Court there. It would also be interresting to know how this was dealt with in a version of the book from before the contorversy, when the USA still recognised the ICJ, which would be before 1984.

However this may be, it's an extra warning that one should be careful with using this book. The problem is that it appears to be so complete that one might think it is complete. So maybe a warning should be spread around about this, considerng how often the book is used as a source here. And it's often just a matter of copying and leaving it at that, thinking that's it. DirkvdM 20:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Intertemporal Comparison

I have a question about the CIA World Factbook that might pertain to this article. The issue is whether one can do an intertemporal comparison of national economies using the GDP section of the Factbook? One issue is that the Factbook is often irratic between years when it comes to national GDP. For example, in 1999 (from the 2000 factbook), the CIA listed the GDP of Russia (PPP) as being $620 billion; then in 2000 (from the 2001 factbook), it was listed as being $1.12 trillion, about 80% growth. Given that the Russian economy did not grow 80% in 2000 and the calculation is PPP, is it not true that the CIA must have changed the method that it used to calculate the statistic? In this case, does the CIA have estimates as to what it thought the Russian economy really was in 1999? If not, how do they explain the discrepancy? The official growth rate of Russia in 2000 was about 10%.

Of course, the issue is not limited only to Russia. If they changed the criteria in one case, they presumably did in other cases as well. In general, is it possible to do intertemporal comparison with factbook statistics such as the GDP PPP and per capita GDP PPP? I would appreciate especially if an employee who knows how the CIA factbook works sees this discussion. 11:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

House Style

I notice that the factbook's house style calls the bloke in charge of Libya "Qadhafi", and the head of Al-Qaeda "Bin Ladin" (in the entry for Afghanistan). There are many other slightly odd-looking spellings in the factbook. Are these World Factbook, CIA, US Government or UN standard spellings? I understand that Qadhafi in particular defies latinisation and is spelled in many different ways.

Think it is a house style peculiar to the Worldbook. --maru (talk) contribs 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Original research

The following paragraph has been removed by User:Spookfish for "non-pov/original research".

=== Focal points ===     
-       The maps of countries in the Factbook also appear to have strange anomalies. For example, the overall map of the United
Kingdom lists the town of [[Grangemouth]] in [[Scotland]], although it is only a small town (population 18,500) and in no way a 
major city (this is perhaps due to its status as a major centre of the oil industry in Scotland after [[Aberdeen]]. It is also part
 of the [[Falkirk]] urban area which, with a population of around 90,000 and with the larger [[Falkirk (council area)|Falkirk 
Council Area]] having a [[population density]] of 496/km², is one of the most populous and most densely inhabited urban centres 
after the conurbations of [[Greater Glasgow|greater]] [[Glasgow]] and [[Edinburgh]] and the cities of [[Dundee]] and Aberdeen. 
Although it would still be an anomaly to refer to this area as "Grangemouth" rather than "Falkirk", the principle [[burgh]] in the 
-       The map of Sweden at one time included [[Tärnaby]] with 500 inhabitants, a town basically unknown except for a few notable 
natives. ([ map])     

-       The map of the United States contains [[Prudhoe Bay]], [[Alaska]], the only city noted in the state other than 
[[Anchorage]]. Despite being an oil field town with several thousand temporary workers at any given time, the town has a permanent 
population of only five people according to the [[2000]] [[census]].     
-       Each government is described according to the American model, consisting of an executive, legislative and judicial branch. 
However in many countries the "executive" leader is a powerless figurehead, for example the [[Monarch of the United Kingdom]] and 
the [[President of Ireland]].

Is this really original research? It's not like it's a complicated theory or a particular criticism, only facts that have been noticed as strange. I think everyone would agree that while accurate, the Factbook is often idiosyncratic in its choices, and these are good examples. Right? UnHoly 06:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing things as "strange anomalies" borders on POV since it relies on your personal judgement of what is "strange". Selectively picking out a few things outside of their full context and then counter-arguing them with other points (in order to establish their "strangeness" as perceived by you) amounts to original research. You've basically setup a thesis that there's "strange anomalies" and then crafted points to back it up. That's original research and, though I'm not saying its not interesting, it's certainly not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Please consider removing it and maybe replacing it with a more balanced trivia section. Spookfish 00:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that country maps routinely represent villages? Almost all country maps will represent the capital and the major cities. I removed the word "strange", but I think the section should stay. As for the fact that the examples are selectively picked, well, yes, it's a selection of trivia; I think this correctly conveys the sense that it is not a unique case but a deliberate choice from the editors of the factbook. UnHoly 05:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Just remember that while you might be absolutely right that it is unusual for mapmakers to put villages on such a high-level map, unless you have a verifiable source stating that it is unusual for mapmakers to put villages on such a high-level map, it is original research. Specificially, "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced stuff...

Here are a few unsourced things I have removed. Can anyone source them?

Although great care is given to representing the borders of countries factually, the choice of cities represented on the map seems sometimes idiosyncratic. For example, the overall map of the United Kingdom lists the town of Grangemouth in Scotland, although it is only a small town (population 18,500) and in no way a major city (this is perhaps due to its status as a major centre of the oil industry in Scotland after Aberdeen. It is also part of the Falkirk urban area which, with a population of around 90,000 and with the larger Falkirk Council Area having a population density of 496/km², is one of the most populous and most densely inhabited urban centres after the conurbations of greater Glasgow and Edinburgh and the cities of Dundee and Aberdeen. Although it would still be an anomaly to refer to this area as "Grangemouth" rather than "Falkirk", the principal burgh in the district).

The map of Sweden at one time included Tärnaby with 500 inhabitants, a town basically unknown except for a few notable natives.

From Oddities and controversies...

As an official publication of the United States government, the factbook is criticized by some for asserting official policy of the United States government as fact and only mentioning contrary positions in footnotes. The factbook highlights diplomatic disputes that are recognized by the United States, but some accuse the publication of ignoring or downplaying disputes that are not favored by the government's foreign policies.


Electoral regimes are depicted from a purely technical point of view without regard to usual (American) appreciation of the degree of liberty in any country. For example, the China pages lists "elections: president and vice president elected by the National People's Congress for five-year terms; elections last held 15-17 March 2003 (next to be held mid-March 2008)..." while the Canada page lists "elections: none; the monarchy is hereditary; governor general appointed by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister for a five-year term...". Also, each government is described according to the American model, consisting of an executive, legislative and judicial branch. However in many countries the "executive" leader is a powerless figurehead, for example the President of Ireland.

From 'House Style'......

Despite the aforementioned quirks and anomalies in the factbook, it remains a quite accurate source of geographical and political information used by a variety of sources outside the CIA.

- Thanks, Hoshie 11:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

data rollback

I have rolled back the number of entries in the WFB since that is the number I can source. I hope this is well. - Thanks, Hoshie 00:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"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!-- 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 (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 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 (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" [3]; 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: [4], [5] and this guy has complained about the British Indian Ocean Territory entry: [6]. 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... -- (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You're easily amused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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)

Fakebook, that's what it is!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2013 (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. — 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 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 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)

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

As for this link:

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)