Talk:The World Factbook

Albania as example of inaccuracies
I just removed the following from the factual inaccuracies section:
 * For example, Albania was until recently, described in the Factbook as Muslim 56.7%, Roman Catholic 10%, Orthodox 6.8%, atheist 2.5%, Bektashi 2.1%, other 5.7%, unspecified 16.2%, which was based on a survey conducted in 1939, before World War II; numerous surveys conducted since the fall of the Communist regime since 1990 have given quite different figures.

Those statistics are almost identical to the 2011 Albanian census figures cited at Albania, so close that I suspect it's ultimately the same data, with different rounding. It would be quite surprising if that 2011 census had the same findings as a 1939 one. Check the first reference, and the Factbook is indeed now sourcing its numbers to the 2011 census. The second reference doesn't discuss the Factbook or anything directly related to the idea of it citing old data. My guess is that at one time, the Factbook did indeed cite erroneous numbers via relying on a much older survey, but that's not a claim we can support on the weight of these sources.

I'm leaving all this here in case someone comes across a reliable source that discusses this, so they don't have to start from scratch. It might be as simple as plugging in the "right" numbers, plus updated referencing. --BDD (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Primary source based
I recall flagging the reliance of this article on the work itself, and did again because it seems unresolved. I know the agency's work is astonishing, but I can't cite me. ~ cygnis insignis 15:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Chagos Archipelago: Neutral language needed
The section about the Chagos Archipelago (which includes a large U.S./U.K. military base on Diego Garcia island) uses judgmental language to portray the United States as unjust. Even if this is true, the evidence for that conclusion must be stated in neutral terms. The biased language is unclear and therefore confusing, e.g.:

The United States is behind both the excision of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritian territory and the forcible expulsion of the Chagossians from their lands to establish a military base on one of the island of the archipelago, namely Diego Garcia.


 * Does "behind" mean that the United States performed these actions or supported them while other actors performed them? The vagueness of "behind" might make it a weasel word implying conspiracy.
 * The passage also seems to state that all Chagossians (presumably the people of the Chagos Archipelago) were expelled from the islands, not just from Diego Garcia.
 * A reader unfamiliar with the facts might conclude that the Chagossians were the ones who "established a military base on one of the island[s]".

That's how confusing this compound sentence is. — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 17:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Scope of "territorial issues and controversies" section
Many of the entires on this list only cite the Factbook itself, as opposed to a secondary source describing it as controversial, so it appears to be much more like routine maintenance than anything controversial. Numberguy6 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

FACEBOOK DALOD
FACEBOOK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.198.107.70 (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)