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)
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)
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)
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)
I'll remove this image from most of the articles using it for now. It's not made clear how the data is compiled, and the source given is unreachable.
My main reason for that is that it appears dubious, at best, to me that there should be any reliable data underlying this. There are quite a few other reasons against having this picture, including:
RandomP 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure which "caption" you're talking about, but it does not matter. The image, not the text accompanying it, or the data it is based on, or the way it is used, is unacceptable, unfixable without significant effort, and should not be used. That's the issue. If you think the information presented in the image is needed, and you cannot generate an acceptable replacement image, write a corresponding paragraph of text and include that in any relevant articles.
RandomP 18:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
Most ambiguous, most flawed graph I have ever seen in my life.
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)
The graph is commonly used in economic growth theory to illustrate the Malthusian period. Look at the discussion above, I think much of this was discussed. Brusegadi 04:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be a line graph? It's data over time, right? 66.31.174.231 ( talk) 16:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'll remove this image from most of the articles using it for now. It's not made clear how the data is compiled, and the source given is unreachable.
My main reason for that is that it appears dubious, at best, to me that there should be any reliable data underlying this. There are quite a few other reasons against having this picture, including:
RandomP 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure which "caption" you're talking about, but it does not matter. The image, not the text accompanying it, or the data it is based on, or the way it is used, is unacceptable, unfixable without significant effort, and should not be used. That's the issue. If you think the information presented in the image is needed, and you cannot generate an acceptable replacement image, write a corresponding paragraph of text and include that in any relevant articles.
RandomP 18:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
Most ambiguous, most flawed graph I have ever seen in my life.
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)
The graph is commonly used in economic growth theory to illustrate the Malthusian period. Look at the discussion above, I think much of this was discussed. Brusegadi 04:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be a line graph? It's data over time, right? 66.31.174.231 ( talk) 16:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)