Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita/sandbox archive

Dispute

Dispute between two users over what information to include at List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita.

Versions

CieloEstrellado's version
Eliko's version

Agreement

Ok, how about this: you both agree (by positive confirmation on my talk page), that if I unprotect the page now, you both agree not to make any edits to that list until you have reached consensus on the version at Wikipedia:Sandbox/List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎. You will let me know that you have consensus by both stating so on the sandbox talk page. At that time, I will merge the pages to preserve page histories. If either of you fail to abide by this agreement, you will be blocked for 7 days. Sound reasonable? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree without hesitation. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too.

P.S. The time here (where I live) is 1:25 after midnight, so I'm going to sleep awhile. see you tomorrow. Goodbye. Eliko (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done! I wish you success in reaching consensus here. (And goodnight, Eliko.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in dispute

CIA footnote

I add the footnote in the CIA section. Eliko (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliko is talking about footnote number 4 in his version. In my version I only say Figures are mostly estimates for 2007 without a footnote and I think that's enough. Likewise on the Penn. table most data are for 2003-2004, but there are four values from 2000 and one from 2002 and there is no footnote there. Why on the CIA and not on the Penn. table, Eliko? You can CLEARLY see the years on the table itself, so I think it is not necessary to add a special footnote for it. Granted, this is a minor issue. But I still believe we should avoid repetition at Wikipedia at all costs. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliko is talking about footnote number 4 in his version. In my version I only say Figures are mostly estimates for 2007 without a footnote and I think that's enough. Likewise on the Penn. table most data are for 2003-2004, but there are four values from 2000 and one from 2002 and there is no footnote there. Why on the CIA and not on the Penn. table, Eliko?

My position is absolutely consistent: As long as Penn. list appears in the article (though I tend to adopt the other editors' position regarding whether this list should really appear in the article) - a respective footnote should be added also to the Penn. section. Eliko (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can CLEARLY see the years on the table itself, so I think it is not necessary to add a special footnote for it. Granted, this is a minor issue. But I still believe we should avoid repetition at Wikipedia at all costs.

I don't see any repetition: This footnote makes the information clearer, since it summerizes within 2 lines only - some important information which is not easy to extract from the table! If you don't think it's important - don't read it, but you shouldn't prevent others from reading it. Let me give you an example: I think that Penn. list is totally needless, since it provides old information, so why don't I delete that list? because I say to myself: "If I don't think it's important - I can simply avoid reading it, but I shouldn't prevent others from reading it". Eliko (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the arguments from both parties are laid out. Anyone care to comment? ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments should be given also for the the Penn. list, and for the idea of merging the old tables into a unified table. Eliko (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMF year

I hold that IMF list should reflect 2006 data, not 2007 estimates. Eliko (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By data Eliko means government national accounts data. That is, hard data, released by Central banks, not estimations by international organizations. I contend that the CIA table is filled with estimates, so why not the IMF list. Eliko says that CIA estimates are based on 2007 data and therefore that makes it suitable to be included, while the IMF bases its estimates on data from before 2007 so, according to him, it's not suitable to be included. Even though Eliko does not provide proof for his CIA claim and therefore it's not a valid argument, it's also not a valid argument because an estimate based on data from 2007 or from 2006 it's still an estimate. I believe estimates for 2007 from both the CIA and the IMF should be included, regardless of the year their estimates are based on. ☆ CieloEstrellado 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By data Eliko means government national accounts data. That is, hard data, released by Central banks, not estimations by international organizations.

I don't accept the way you've described my position. when I say "estimate" (with regard to our article) I mean: extrapolation, e.g. extrapolation - from the past - to the present time (or to the future), or extrapolation - from the present time (or from the past) - to the future. However, when I say "data" I mean any given information (i.e. excluding estimates etc.) supplied by a given body, no matter whether it is a central bank, an intelligence unit, or even AL-QAIDA, or whatsoever. Eliko (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that the CIA table is filled with estimates, so why not the IMF list. Eliko says that CIA estimates are based on 2007 data and therefore that makes it suitable to be included, while the IMF bases its estimates on data from before 2007 so, according to him, it's not suitable to be included. Even though Eliko does not provide proof for his CIA claim and therefore it's not a valid argument [...]

I really haven't provided a direct proof (against your opinion stating that CIA values are estimates rather than data); However, I did provide an indirect proof - based on an instructive example - which you haven't refuted yet: Andorra's figure (being just an example here) is for 2005, and so far it has remained the same value - since 2005: i.e., CIA report published in 2005 - as well as CIA report published in 2006, as well as CIA report published in 2007, as well as CIA report published in the beginning of 2008, have been indicating Andorra's value as being (all along) the same value: "38,800, 2005 est.". Now, my (indirect) proof goes as follows: if your opinion had been correct, and Andorra's value (for 2005) could have been an estimate only (rather than data) - i.e. could have been based on data before 2005 - then a very simple question would have arisen: why does CIA keep the old estimate? Why isn't the old CIA estimate updated for 2006, and for 2007, and for 2008? Look: if CIA can (by a simple calculation called "extrapolation") supply an estimate for 2005 - using data from previous years before 2005, then CIA can (by the same calculation) supply an estimate for 2006 (and for 2007 and for 2008) using data from previous years! This is simple mathematics! However, you see that CIA doesn't update Andorra's values (as well as other countries' values), and this is due to the sole remaining reason which refutes your before-mentioned opinion: CIA figures (which are named in CIA report by the slightly-confusing term "est.", i.e. "estimation" - not "estimate") - are based on online data: Andorra's value for 2005 is based on data of 2005, not on data of previous years before 2005; CIA can't update Andorra's figures, because any new estimation for 2006 (or 2007) must be based on new data of 2006 (or 2007 - respectively), while CIA Inteligence Unit hasn't been able to achieve that new information - so far! That's why CIA doesn't update Andorra's old figure, so the riddle has now been solved and your before-mentioned opinion has been refuted! As I said before, Andorra's case (as well as other countries' case) is not a direct proof - but rather is an indirect proof based on an instructive example. If you want to get more information - we must get together (wherever you want), and I'll give you some more information: I can't elaborate here on that matter of how CIA collects its data and how CIA processes its data, nor can I detail here about my personal relation to all of that issue. Eliko (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The incomprehensible mess above proves nothing. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra's case refutes your opinion (stating that CIA values are estimates rather than data). Could you please answer a very simple question: if your opinion had been correct, and Andorra's value (for 2005) could have been an estimate only (rather than data) - i.e. could have been based on data before 2005 - then: why does CIA keep the old estimate? Why isn't the old CIA estimate updated for 2006, and for 2007, and for 2008? Your position can't answer that, while my position can! This is the indirect proof refuting your position! Eliko (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[...] it's also not a valid argument because an estimate based on data from 2007 or from 2006 it's still an estimate.

Oh really? IMF does not agree with you! since IMF report indicates 2006 data in light cells (for most countries), whereas IMF report indicates 2007 estimates in "shaded" cells, and also states: "Shaded cells indicate IMF staff estimates". If you had been correct then the before-mentioned statement (in the IMF report) - had been meaningless; Furthermore: If you had been correct then IMF shouldn't have had to distinguish between the cell colors. Eliko (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't connect your arguments with what I said originally. I suspect you're setting up a straw man. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for mistakenly understood you as having referred to IMF, while you have really referred to CIA. OK, so - referring to CIA - you had claimed that "an estimate based on data from 2007 or from 2006 it's still an estimate", right? but I defined very well what I mean by "estimate" (as opposed to data): when I say "estimate" (with regard to our article) I mean: extrapolation, e.g. extrapolation - from the past - to the present time (or to the future), or extrapolation - from the present time (or from the past) - to the future. However, when I say "data" I mean any given information (i.e. excluding estimates etc.) supplied by a given body. So, any value for 2007 which is based on data of previous years - is an extrapolation, and therefore it is an "estimate" (according to what I've defined), whereas any value for 2006 which is based on data of 2006 - is not an extrapolation, and therefore it is not an "estimate" (according to what I've defined). Eliko (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting that all PPP values are estimates by themselves, because PPP conversion rates are all estimates from a local basket of goods and services.☆ CieloEstrellado 01:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's avoid getting confused: unfortunately, we both use the same term "estimate" for different meanings! when you say "estimate" you probably mean what I call "estimation" (i.e. values processed in some manner), while when I say "estimate" I mean: extrapolation (e.g. extrapolation - from the past - to the future/present time, or extrapolation - from the past/present time - to the future). Now let's go back to my initial position which you've quoted at the beginning of the current section: I hold that IMF list should reflect 2006 data, not 2007 estimates. The word "estimate" has confused you (because you've interpreted it: "estimation"), So I recommend that we no longer use this term in our discussions; just to avoid getting confused, OK? So when we go back to my initial position - it should be put now as follows: I hold that IMF list should reflect 2006 givens, not 2007 extrapolations. Is my position clearer now? The reasoning behind my position - is: avoiding incosistency, as I've explained below (in the current section). Eliko (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe estimates for 2007 from both the CIA and the IMF should be included, regardless of the year their estimates are based on.

your "belief" (as you call it) is (in my opinion) incosistent: Really, if it were consistent, then you should hold that the IMF values which will be presented on the article in the beginning of 2009 - should be for 2008 (just as you hold that the IMF values which should be presented on the artice in the beginning of 2008 - should be for 2007); However, those IMF values for 2008 - which (according to your apparently consistent position) should be presented (on the article) in the beginning of 2009 - are going to be published by IMF in September/October 2008 (i.e. in the second report of the year), so considering that, as well as (considering) Wikipedia's universal objective of publicizing any relevant informatiom as soon as possible - rather than hiding-it-as-if-it-were-a-secret, you should hold that those data should be represented (on the article) before 2009 (e.g. in September 2008, i.e. without having to wait for 1 january 2009); but if so - then why don't you hold (again - due to apparent consistency) that the article should present now (in the beginning 2008, i.e. without having to wait for September) the current IMF values for 2008? (note that no discrimination should exist between the current IMF 2008 values and the 2008 values which will be published by the IMF in September). The argument of "2008 is not over yet" is not valid, because also before 2009 (i.e. in September 2008) - IMF will have the same 2008 estimate which IMF will have in the beginning of 2009 - and which (according to your apparently consistent position) should be presented on the article in the beginning of 2009, whereas Wikipedia's universal objective is to publicize any relevant information (i.e. data - in my opinion, or even estimates - in your opinion) as soon as possible, rather than to hide-it-as-if-it-were-a-secret! Eliko (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. The reason the article List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita should have values for the latest completed year, is because that is the latest value available. GDP is an anual quantity, measuring the output of a full year, from January 1 to December 31. So the latest, relevant figure is the one for the latest year that has been completed. This is the figure that should be available to Wikipedia users in this article. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you haven't figured out what I've claimed. If you answer the following three questions - you will surely understand:

With regard to IMF values which will be presented on the article in the beginning of 2009: should they be for 2008 or for 200'7?
With regard to those IMF values for 2008 - which are going to be published by IMF in September/October 2008 (i.e. in the second report of the year): should they be represented (on the article) before 2009 (e.g. in September 2008, i.e. without having to wait for 1 january 2009) or just in 2009?
With regard to the current IMF values for 2008: should they be presented now (in the beginning 2008, i.e. without having to wait for September), or just later (e.g. in September)?

Eliko (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All IMF data for 2008 should be posted on January 1, 2009. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see the problem now? Why shouldn't Wikipedia present those 2008 values now? The argument of "2008 is not over yet" is not valid, because also before 2009 (i.e. in September 2008) - IMF will have the same 2008 estimate which IMF will have in the beginning of 2009 - and which (according to your position) should be presented on the article in the beginning of 2009, whereas Wikipedia's universal objective is to publicize any relevant information (i.e. givens - in my opinion, or even extrapolations - in your opinion) as soon as possible, rather than to hide-it-as-if-it-were-a-secret! Eliko (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one has the intention to hide anything. It's just not relevant for this article. Of course you can make an article called List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita in 2008, and put the 2008 values there and link to it from the main article. ☆ CieloEstrellado 10:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't values for 2008 relevant for this article while values for 2007 are? Why don't you make an article called List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita in 2007 and put the 2007 values there and link to it from the main article? Note that my criteria are consistent: to publicize - as soon as possible without hiding anything - the most updated givens (i.e. excluding extrapolation), but what are your criteria (for discriminating now between 2007 values and 2008 values) - when you have clearly stated: "No one has the intention to hide anything" ? Eliko (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated why. ☆ CieloEstrellado 00:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I've asked you three different questions - none of which you've answered (as far as I could find). However, if you think that you have answered those three questions, please show me where, and I'll read, and maybe I'll get convinced. Eliko (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMF year column

I add the third column in the IMF list. Eliko (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is related to the second issue, above. Eliko wants us to make sure we know what was the latest year of data the IMF used on its estimation for the value given in the table. I believe this is not necessary and we should avoid including it in the table. This is the sort of information only economists would find useful and it would be the only source with this information in the table. It's what I call asymmetry of information across sources. ☆ CieloEstrellado 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asymmetry of infornation? So let's remove the third columns from CIA list and from Penn. list, because we should avoid "Asymmetry of information"! Look my friend: if you think this piece of information (included in the third column of IMF list) is needless (or "asymmetric") - avoid reading it, but you shouldn't prevent others from reading it. Let me give you an example: I think (like the other editors) that Penn. list is totally needless, since it provides old information, so why don't I delete that list? because I say to myself: "If I don't think it's important - I can simply avoid reading it, but I shouldn't prevent others from reading it". Eliko (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the arguments from both parties are laid out. Anyone care to comment? ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments should be given also for the the Penn. list, and for the idea of merging the old tables into a unified table. Eliko (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input comments

Apparently, when asking for "input comments" you haven't described objectively our dispute, because in my point of view (as opposed to your point of view) my version is by no means "leaving estimates from the CIA untouched" (as you've described that), because (in my view) CIA values are not "estimates" at all - but rather are "data" - with the meaning indicated above (which was based on the indirect proof indicated above, and on another point).

You can't be serious. Even the CIA itself adds "est." (meaning estimate) after the figure. Of course they're estimates. And you leave the CIA estimates for 2007 alone in your version while removing 2007 estimates from the IMF. It's inconsistent. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get confused: "est.", i.e. estimation, means data processed in some manner, while when I say "estimate" I mean extrapolation, e.g. extrapolation - from the past - to the present time (or to the future), or extrapolation - from the present time (or from the past) - to the future. This is quite a different thing! Eliko (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny how you make stuff up. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I make up nothing: I just use a language slightly different than yours: when you say "estimate" you probably mean what I call "estimation" (i.e. values processed in some manner), while when I say "estimate" I mean: extrapolation. Additionaly, when you say "data" you probably mean what I call "values" (including values received by extrapolation), while when I say "data" I mean: "givens" (i.e. excluding extrapolation). However, I don't insist on using my own language exclusively! So let's choose a neutral language - just to avoid getting confused: e.g., instead of using the term "estimate" - let's use the clearer term: "extrapolation" (e.g. extrapolation - from the past - to the future/present time, or extrapolation - from the past/present time - to the future), and instead of using the term "data" - let's use the clearer term "givens" (i.e. excluding extrapolation). So when we go back to my initial position - it should be put now as follows: I hold that IMF list should reflect 2006 givens, not 2007 extrapolations. Is my position clearer now? The reasoning behind my position - is: avoiding incosistency, as I've explained above. Eliko (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't reject any idea of receiving input comments, however I do think that we should receive comments on other issues as well - e.g. whether the old tables should be merged into a unified table, and I also think that if we consider input comments on our 3 disputed issues (providing that the dispute is presented objectively) - then we should also consider the editors' comments on the Penn. issue. Eliko (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive ideas

I think that I have some constructive ideas for bridging the gap between us. However, before I present them, I would like to hear whether you too can have constructive ideas. Try to give 4-5 ideas, and I will give 4-5 ideas, and then we'll choose the most overlapping idea in both your proposal and my proposal. Have a nice day. Eliko (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any ideas at the moment. Please post the ones you already say you have. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really have some ideas, and none of them involves a betrayal of friends; On the contrary: I made my best to defend my friend, as you can see here. Eliko (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not your friend, sorry. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Memorandum: here - you've requested me (friendly?): "Can we agree on... as a matter of protest?...Do you agree?", and I answered you: "Yes I do agree, my friend, because I think that you're an honest person". Having heard me call you: "my friend" - you didn't respond: "I'm not your friend, sorry" - but rather: "Do you agree that as soon as ANDREW unprotects the page we...Do you agree?" If, at that moment, you didn't think that I'm your friend, you should have responded instead: "I'm not your friend, sorry". Why didn't you respond this way? Eliko (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]