| Revision as of 14:22, 7 June 2013 editIsinbill (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users37,760 edits →Thank by the ortography correction← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:42, 8 June 2013 edit undoAfricaTanz (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers3,903 edits →GDP data for TanzaniaNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| :We cannot assume that the characteristics of the Tanzanians living in Chicago are representative of Tanzanians living elsewhere in the United States. ] (]) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC) | :We cannot assume that the characteristics of the Tanzanians living in Chicago are representative of Tanzanians living elsewhere in the United States. ] (]) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::Not that. The simple fact that there are, for example, a group of carpenters from some origin in a U.S., already would mean that there is a group of carpenters from that origin in the U.S., because that place belongs to the U.S.--] (]) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC) | ::Not that. The simple fact that there are, for example, a group of carpenters from some origin in a U.S., already would mean that there is a group of carpenters from that origin in the U.S., because that place belongs to the U.S.--] (]) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == GDP data for Tanzania == | |||
| A difference of population estimates between the IMF and the national statistical office is not unusual, since they're not calculated from the same base year, and it doesn't justify the deletion of GDP per capita figures. The difference between the two projections is small: the estimated a population of 43.019 million, and the GDP per capita barely changed (to $1,708 PPP and $650 nominal). You can use this earlier estimate if you prefer, but removing it altogether is unacceptable.--] (]) 19:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Whether the difference is "unusual" is irrelevant to the question of whether the per capital figure is "wrong". There is no doubt that the figure is, in fact, "wrong" based on the official census. The International Monetary Fund's (IMF) population estimate for 2012 was 47,142,648, which is 2,213,646 more than the 2012 census result of 44,929,002, a 4.9 percent discrepancy. The per capita GDP (PPP) based on the census would have been 1,643.90, not the IMF's erroneous 1,566.71. There is no cited proof that the IMF would ignore the results of the census. Therefore, the IMF's per capital figure is, in your terms, "unacceptable" and, in my terms, "inaccurate" and, therefore, "unencyclopedic". Should you wish any further discussion of this issue, take it to the article talk page, not here. ] (]) 02:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:42, 8 June 2013
 | AfricaTanz was away on vacation from 27 April 2013 to 1 November 2013 and may not have responded swiftly to queries. |  |
reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Misplaced Pages:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
- Misplaced Pages:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Solomon Islands reply to your question
For the name of the country try https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bp.html or http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/solomonislands or any SI government site or even Solomon Islands. The Solomon Islands refers to the archipelago, which includes the nation of Solomon Islands but also other areas such as Bougainville, which is a province of another country, PNG. 'The' Solomon Islands has a separate page in wikipedia at The Solomon Islands (archipelago). I actually work in the Ministry for Justice and Legal Affairs, Solomon Islands under RAMSI, which is the multilateral peace force carefully called the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands not the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands, which would upset PNG. Before independence in 1978 the islands that now make up Solomon Islands came under the colonial British administration for the archipelago and was in fact called the Solomon Islands because, to them, it was just a collection of islands; the name Solomon Islands was chosen to differentiate the new nation but colonial habits die hard so most Brits still talk about the Solomon Islands when they mean the nation. Solomon Islanders would like to get away from the colonial past so putting in the 'the' can be rather insulting. Ex nihil 06:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you have not yet proven that "Solomon Islands" is correct. (1) Your personal knowledge is irrelevant. (2) Misplaced Pages is not a proper source for Misplaced Pages. (3) Whether some Solomon Islanders would be insulted is also irrelevant. (4) The Central Intelligence Agency website uses "the Solomon Islands" in places. (5) The United States Department of State refers to the country as "the Solomon Islands". (6) As does the United Nations. Any further discussion should be on the article discussion page, not my talk page. AfricaTanz (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank by the ortography correction
I think my spelling in English is very bad, according other editors have written me, because I want to thank you that you've explained what I wrote in the article of the Tanzanian Americans with other words. That could facilitate reading. Well, I had mentioned the Tanzanians´s professions that were in the United States based on the Encyclopedia of Chicago, because if many Tanzanians have certain professions in Chicago, many Tanzanians have them in the U.S., but that does not matter much.--Isinbill (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- We cannot assume that the characteristics of the Tanzanians living in Chicago are representative of Tanzanians living elsewhere in the United States. AfricaTanz (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not that. The simple fact that there are, for example, a group of carpenters from some origin in a U.S., already would mean that there is a group of carpenters from that origin in the U.S., because that place belongs to the U.S.--Isinbill (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
GDP data for Tanzania
A difference of population estimates between the IMF and the national statistical office is not unusual, since they're not calculated from the same base year, and it doesn't justify the deletion of GDP per capita figures. The difference between the two projections is small: the October 2012 WEO estimated a population of 43.019 million, and the GDP per capita barely changed (to $1,708 PPP and $650 nominal). You can use this earlier estimate if you prefer, but removing it altogether is unacceptable.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Whether the difference is "unusual" is irrelevant to the question of whether the per capital figure is "wrong". There is no doubt that the figure is, in fact, "wrong" based on the official census. The International Monetary Fund's (IMF) population estimate for 2012 was 47,142,648, which is 2,213,646 more than the 2012 census result of 44,929,002, a 4.9 percent discrepancy. The per capita GDP (PPP) based on the census would have been 1,643.90, not the IMF's erroneous 1,566.71. There is no cited proof that the IMF would ignore the results of the census. Therefore, the IMF's per capital figure is, in your terms, "unacceptable" and, in my terms, "inaccurate" and, therefore, "unencyclopedic". Should you wish any further discussion of this issue, take it to the article talk page, not here. AfricaTanz (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)