Talk:List of countries by wealth per adult

The maps need an update.

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

Confusing mixed-links

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.wikipedia.org/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)

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)

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)