File talk:World GDP Capita 1-2003 A.D.png

message: The author of this horrible graph provides a source for the information regarding the global economy from 1AD to the 19th century, which is this book here, but it still merits close critical analysis.  There's already a lengthy discussion below questioning the validity of the numbers in this graph, so I'm just going to challenge the flawed regional groupings that the author breaks the world down to.  
These 7 geographic regions (Africa, Asia, Former USSR, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Latin America, and Western Ofshots [sic]) are horribly flawed in that they force a modern-day categorization of world regions to different eras when such regional groupings would not have made any sense.  For example, the notions of a "Western Europe" and "Eastern Europe" didn't exist in 1AD, when you would have actually had a Southern Greco-Roman Europe (and its sphere of influence) versus a northern/central/eastern "barbarian" Europe. 
Additionally, just as these regional groupings are horribly modern-centric, they're also horribly anglocentric.  "Western Offshoots" can be understood to refer to any country or region whose culture is derived either entirely, or to a large extent, from Europe.  Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina would fit this description, but because there's already a "Latin America", we're left to assume that "Western Offshoots" refers only to the Anglo societies outside Europe: the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.  This is a flawed sociocultural paradigm that mindlessly repeats a common mistake frequently made in American public discourse: using the term "Western" to refer exclusively to the English-speaking world and -variably- parts of Europe deemed to be similar.  
Aside from the fact that Argentina today is ethnically and culturally closer to Canada (let alone Spain and Italy) than to Guatemala, the geo-cultural regions of "Latin America" and "Western Offshoots" wouldn't have even made any sense before the 16th century.  
"Asia" is another horribly concocted region on this graph, made up of vastly different civilizational regions from Mesopotamia and Persia to China and Japan.  While Europe and its post-1500 sphere of influence are divided into 5 regions (Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Former USSR, Latin America, Western Offshoots), civilizations as vastly different as the Persians and Japanese are forced together into "Asia", rather than grouping them into more sensible categories, such as Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Central Asia.  Hell, China deserves to be its own socio-regional category, or at least group it with its sphere of influence (Vietnam, Korea, Japan).
This graph is just horribly "amateurish" (for lack of a better term), and shouldn't be used in any Wikipedia entry
Skyduster (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flawed world regions 

message: I feel that real dollars (adjusted for inflation) would be more appropriate.  If this plot is not adjusted for inflation, then even if real GDP remained constant, the plot would be exponential.  Therefore, unless this chart is adjusted for inflation, we cannot tell if there is anything interesting going on besides inflation. --209.131.62.113 (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Dollars 

message: This Australian says: YOU'RE a western offshoot. Now, how do you like being called names?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.78.192 (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Western Offshoot

message: How much of the "Western Offshots" is the United States?  The maker couldn't bring himself to put in United States?  Also, Offshoots is misspelled Offshots.  The image will be removed from the Industrial Revolution article. Chiss Boy 17:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the author was being "anti-American".  We don't know his/her intentions, but I understood "Western Offshoots" to include, the entire Anglosphere (USA, Canada, Australia, NZ).  Of course, as I noted above, these regional groupings are flawed.  But by assuming that "Western Offshoots" is a reference solely to the United States, you're being just as ethnocentric as you accuse the author of being. Skyduster (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: More anti-American drivel

message: Hi.  A logarithm scale along the vertical axis would be more useful since so much of the graph is so near the 0 horizonal mark.  Growth graphs are usually best shown in logarithm scale anyways, because growth is usually percentage of existing growth - expectations and growth potential rise based on prior growth.  --70.48.71.143 22:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on your purpose. A logarithimc graph may be better if comparing year-to-year change, but not if comparing starting and ending points. Also, many people do not understand logarithmic scales.Ultramarine 23:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with user 70.48.71.143: A log scale would be much better in representing the data that is there. Now whether or not the data is accurate is not my argument here.  Whoever decided to go back and do all the research and compile the new data, a log scale of GDP per capita or whatever data ends up on the Y-axis would be more fitting.  As a graph that makes use of a log plot, it should also be noted in the updated caption, as well as a brief description of why the log scale is used with maybe a link to the mathematical term "logarithmic" or something similar. ~AK (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Log scale would be better 

message: Most ambiguous, most flawed graph I have ever seen in my life.
:Why?  --Vince | Talk 05:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is just to much speculation and retrospectivisim in this graph... What was the former USSR doing around time of the Romans? Hah?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.113.169 (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you kidding? 

message: no y axis definition, what are 'western offshots'?, and why is there no data for most of the graph?
'nuff said.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aformalevent (talk • contribs) 03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  terrible image needs deletion 

message: Shouldn't this be a line graph? It's data over time, right? 66.31.174.231 (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a line graph is appropriate because there are so few data points. Connecting data points 1000 years apart with a line adds no additional meaning, and may even be misleading. I agree that the bar graph isn't ideal either. I also think this graph should be on a log scale so we can see most of the data. Rm999 (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Line graph

message: This is one of the worst graphs I have ever seen! So amount of work could kix this graph. It's horrible! Delete it! It's beyond bad! 58.178.30.85 (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: I've created an alternative graph from the same data source showing the world average only from 1500-2003 at :File:World GDP per capita 1500 to 2003.png. Doesn't show the different geographic areas, but the present uses of this image don't need that. Qwfp (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative version