Talk:The World Factbook

Albania as example of inaccuracies

I just removed the following from the factual inaccuracies section:

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

References

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

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

Primary source based

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

Please give an example of where this is an actual problem with a particular citation. The banner tag seems too broad and so is not generating any response. And it is disruptive so I'm removing it. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I believe this was regarding all the SYNTH that I have since removed. Agree the banner is no longer necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI, I wanted to resolve the orange banner tag quickly as it would have been a blocker at ITN, where the news has been nominated. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Chagos Archipelago: Neutral language needed

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

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

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

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

Does "behind" mean that the United States performed these actions or supported them while other actors performed them? The vagueness of "behind" might make it a weasel word implying conspiracy.

”Behind” does not mean “that the United States performed these actions”.

”Behind” doesn’t really mean that the United States “supported [these actions] while other actors performed them”, either.

It means exactly what you take to be “a weasel word implying conspiracy”: that the United Kingdom, at the behest of the United States, expelled the islanders and excised the islands so that the United States could install a military base there.

There is nothing “judgmental” or “biased” in the passage you object to. To complain that the passage “uses judgmental language to portray the United States as unjust” isn’t a meaningful objection to the actual content of that passage — it’s simply a speculative and unsupported allegation that another contributor has written it in bad faith.

As regards the factual substance of the matter, the main article on the expulsion of the Chagossians provides greater detail. (Note, additionally, that “Chagossians” is in fact the standard term for the expellees. There is no confusion as to who that term denotes)

The article quotes an ICJ advisory opinion that "the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence", and that "the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible." A UN resolution similarly recognising that the excision of the islands was unlawful was also passed.

The same ICJ opinion quotes Mauritius explaining that “the entire purpose of detaching the Archipelago was to secure it for the establishment of the U.S. military base.” This was not contested by the UK. There is no contention whatsoever as to it being a fact.

The ICJ decision finds that the UK, at the Lancaster House Meeting, presented itself to Mauritius as being incapable of making definitive undertakings as to Mauritius’ rights to natural resources, fishing, etc — that is to say, the most basic components of economic sovereignty — because these matters were to be determined by the United States.

When, for example, Mauritius “raised the return of the Archipelago when no longer needed for defence purposes and the possibility of approaching the United States regarding the use of Mauritian supplies and manpower in support of the planned defence facility”, the UK answered that the US was the sole constructor of the base, which it would construct using American materials, contractors, and so on.

At no point in any of this did the UK dispute that its seizure of the islands and expulsion of their residents was motivated by an American request that a site be prepared for an American military base.

The main page on the controversy provides wholly conclusive documentary evidence that the UK sought to deny that the Chagossians were residents of the territory from which they were expelled, deliberately undercounted the population in service of that aim, and attempted to dishonestly use environmental protection laws to prevent the Chagossians from returning. All of this is recorded in documents from the UK government itself, as is the ultimate goal of this conspiracy: to depopulate the area on behalf of the United States.

The passage to which you object is entirely substantiated by the facts. To baselessly accuse its author of ill intent is improper. Foxmilder (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Scope of "territorial issues and controversies" section

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

Reception

Were there any reviews of The World Factbook or any of its editions? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Howardcorn33: I'm confused about your request. Were they any reviews where? Here in Wikipedia? Out in the media? In academic journals? I'm not sure what you are asking here. - Dyork (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Dyork: I'm asking if any reliable source published a review of The World Factbook, and if so, this should be put in a dedicated "Reception" section. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Howardcorn33: - Ah! I didn't understand that from your message. That's a good question and not one that I actually know. - Dyork (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  So far I've only found one. I've added it now. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Merkl, D., Rauber, A. (1998). CIA's view of the world and what neural networks learn from it: A comparison of geographical document space representation metaphors. In: Quirchmayr, G., Schweighofer, E., Bench-Capon, T.J. (eds) Database and Expert Systems Applications. DEXA 1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1460. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0054537
• Islam, Khandaker Nayeemul (2011) "Quantitative and Qualitative Research Controversy in Public Administration: An Analysis of Statistical Data Presented on United Kingdom People Category in the CIA World Factbook," The Hilltop Review: Vol. 4: Iss. 2, Article 5. Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/hilltopreview/vol4/iss2/5
• Shuler, Jack. "The CIA World Factbook: Marriage of Archive and Empire?." Reconstruction: Studies in Contemporary Culture vol. 3, no. 3, 2003, pp. 1–16. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/reconstruction/vol3/iss3/10
• Peter Buneman, Heiko Müller, Chris Rusbridge. Curating the CIA World Factbook. The International Journal of Digital Curation, Issue 3, Volume 4 | 2009 http://hdl.handle.net/1842/3203
• Geck, Caroline. The World Factbook. The Charleston Adviser. 19(1), 2017, pp. 58-60(3) https://doi.org/10.5260/chara.19.1.58
• CIA puts the world at your fingertips, Jack Schofield, The Guardian, 31 Mar 2008 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/mar/31/world.factbook Fences&Windows 00:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

'Managed to retrieve'

> Following the cancellation of the Factbook, British programmer Simon Willison managed to retrieve and download the last ZIP file archive of the website, released in 2020, before extracting it into a freely accessible GitHub repository.

This sentence, its inclusion in the intro, and its phrasing strike me as odd. Anyone can still download ZIP archives of all previous versions from the Internet Archive. It's not some sort of heroic or Herculanean task to do so - the files are still there and readily available to anyone who wants to grab them. But congrats to this one guy, I guess. --Dipsy2000 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook is not reliable or accurate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The CIA World Factbook was shutdown because it was a bad source of information and was reporting wrong information from ignorant and uneducated people. These people lost their jobs after deeper investigation and closer looks into this fraudulent situation. ~2026-29043-54 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

For example the "Aimaq" and "Hazara" are (Stateless) Türkic ethnic groups/ethnicities (Aimaq Türks / Hazara Türks) that live in the State of Afghanistan. The CIA World Facebook misreported this information, and didn't change it, until Türkic historians noticed the error, and reported it to their editorial and publication division(s). ~2026-29043-54 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook was a reliable and trustworthy open source with factual information about all countries in the world. No reasons were given by the US Government for the discontinuation of the CIA World Factbook. I can think of one reason: dictators don't like people being informed. Vysotsky (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.