Jump to content

Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Update and Expand

I do not quite see why we should completely exclude available information about super rich countries like Brunei, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Andorra, and San Marino. The Vatican would be an interesting case, too. We can mark them to be estimations and provide the sources, but keeping it as it is means pretending the people in the top listed countries were the richest in the world, and this is not at all the case. Get-back-world-respect 20:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
see September 2006 data available on this page. --Van helsing 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Aruba

Why is Aruba excluded from this list? — Instantnood 12:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of missing dependencies, too. The only dependencies added are those that appeared in the IMF study. If you want to add the missing dependencies, use the data from the CIA World Factbook. —Cantus…☎ 18:50, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Rankings

Can it be two-column - one for ranking of sovereign states, and the other for all countries listed? — Instantnood 12:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest no, because then you lose the ability to directly compare to other countries. —Cantus…☎ 18:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Only one source should be used and all for the same year

There is a great deal of estimation involved in producing these figures. Results published by different organisations can be quite different. Even with the same source, they can change their minds from year to year. (I keep track of the CIA figures, and they downgraded the US from 158.8% of the UK figure in 2000 to 136.5% of it in 2003, and they nearly doubled their estimate of Russia's PPP per capita in the late 1990s, despite the collapse of the Russian economy.) If this rule is not applied, people can pick and choose the most favourable figure for their country and add it to the table. 82.35.34.11 13:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What happened to having 2 seperate lists, one for IMF and one for CIA figures? I thought that was much more useful. This has both figures mixed in; not a very reliable resource if countries are compared with different metrics from different organizations. Frogular 07:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Singapore

Should be 27,800$ per capita[1], and not 26,800.

See comment above about using a single source. IMF places Singapore lower, CIA places Singapore higher. Frogular 07:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancies

I was checking the GDP figures in the articles for Germany, Uk and France, and noticed that they are nit the same those listed here. Can someone sort out which figures are correct, or perhaps why they are different figures so disagree?? Sandpiper 12:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Also have a look at China (#4 of the world re GDP) and USA, Germany, Japan as the largest economies. E.g. per capita of Germany (population 82mm) is some $30k (in reality is more than $32k))whereas the one of China (population more than 1bn, so way more than 10x as large) is $7k according to the ranking. Does not match at all, don't you think?

===> This is not strange at all. The data in this table is based on PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). Nomial GDP per capita is quite different from the PPP data. The nominal GDP per capita of China is around 2,500 $ as far as I know. $7k is the adjusted value based on the low prices in China. But recently, IMF announced that the prices of China had been underestimated so its true PPP value might be around $5k not $7k. This problem occurred since China did not officialy allow IMF to look into the prices in China, so IMF has been using old data based on the prices in 1986.

Intertemporal Comparison with CIA data

I have a question about the CIA World Factbook that might pertain to this article, since it uses CIA data. The issue is whether one can do an intertemporal comparison of national economies using the GDP section of the Factbook? One issue is that the Factbook is often irratic between years when it comes to national GDP. For example, in 1999 (from the 2000 factbook), the CIA listed the GDP of Russia (PPP) as being $620 billion; then in 2000 (from the 2001 factbook), it was listed as being $1.12 trillion, about 80% growth. Given that the Russian economy did not grow 80% in 2000 and the calculation is PPP, is it not true that the CIA must have changed the method that it used to calculate the statistic? In this case, does the CIA have estimates as to what it thought the Russian economy really was in 1999? If not, how do they explain the discrepancy? The official growth rate of Russia in 2000 was about 10%.

Of course, the issue is not limited only to Russia. If they changed the criteria in one case, they presumably did in other cases as well. In general, is it possible to do intertemporal comparison with factbook statistics such as the GDP PPP and per capita GDP PPP? I would appreciate especially if an employee who knows how the CIA factbook works sees this discussion. I have also posted this comment on the CIA article. 18.251.6.67 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that in 1999 Russia had $620 billion, but almost 86% inflation rate and that the value given in 2000 was 1.12 trillion. I also understand that in 1998 Russia was in a really tough depression that continued over to 99. 2000 had a bomb wih rising oil and Putin was able to get inflation down to normal. So 86% of the change came from inflation and the other 4 from economic growth.dualdual

Consistency with List of countries by GDP (PPP)

I propose we should have multiple tables, 1 from IMF and 1 from CIA factbook, to show variation between calculation methods and also stop the incessant number changes that supporters of various countries perform. Frogular 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the IMF figure for world GDP (PPP)? It was on the page just three weeks ago, and now it's gone. This is quite annoying. Disappearing data corrodes the credibility of Wikipedia. Knappster 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
IMF does not provide a per capita version of the World GDP (PPP) value, total GDP (PPP) they do provide. Before the split in IMF and CIA factbook tables (19 March), the World value in the (one) IMF table was sourced (with a footnote) from the GDP (PPP) list and the factbook, not IMF.--Van helsing 20:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Then couldn't we just take that figure for total worldwide GDP (PPP) and divide it by 6.5 billion people? Am I missing something here? Knappster 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Where's Cuba?

The third poorest country in the Americas (after Bolivia and Haiti), is missing from this list.

According to the much-debated article on Cuba, it should rank as the 126th country, with a per capita figure of $3,000, very close to Bolivia. By the way, both the figure and the position number given for Bolivia (#125 and Int. $2,817, respectively) are wrong, as they are in fragrant contradiction with the data in the article for Bolivia for 2006 (GDP Int. $949).

At any rate, the $3,000 figure for Cuba looks extremely fattened and unreliable (nothing to be surprised about).

Hopefully someone with access to solid, reliable information fixes these errors.

AVM 18:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Which source would you consider to be solid and reliable?
I would say: help yourself and ‘fix these errors’ --Van helsing 09:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


"for all 180 members of the International Monetary Fund" the IMF article says "With the exception of North Korea, Cuba, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, Tuvalu and Nauru, all UN member states either participate directly in the IMF or are represented by other member states." Hence data for these countries should be added at the end as it's not like-for-like compatible. Lichenstein would have been very near the top I would expect. Rich Farmbrough 21:56 19 May 2006 (UTC).


Romania: Consolidated Budget Revenues at €9.23 bln in Jan-April '06

14:55 - 01 June 2006 - Romania collected revenues of 32.6 bln lei (€9.23 bln) to the consolidated state budget in the first four months of 2006, accounting for 10.1% of the country's GDP, said the Romanian Ministry of Finance.


The country's spending in the first four months of 2006 stood at 29.2 bln lei (€8.27 bln), which is 9.1% of the country's GDP. Tax on profit generated 3.1 bln lei (€877.9 mln) of the country's consolidated state budget revenue during the reported period, while collection of income tax generated 2.8 bln lei (€792.9 mln), value added tax (VAT) contributed 8.1 bln lei (€2.29 bln) and excise tax generated 2.9 bln lei (€821.28 mln) of the total.

The Romanian Government had initially envisaged a budget deficit of 0.5% of GDP for 2006, which increased to 0.9% of GDP after the first budget revision in April 2006.


Source: http://www.reporter.gr/fulltext_ENG.cfm?id=60601145531 --212.227.101.15 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So GDP is 92,30 Billion EURO in 2006. --212.227.101.15 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

paragraph about accumulated wealth versus income

I removed the following paragraph (along with restoring the IMF figures due to an other editor):

In the case of countries that have seen a dramatic increase of personal income only recently, one must also remember they might not yet have much accumulated wealth, so a comparison based only on current income (however measured) risks overstating the prosperity of places that have seen recent booms. In a place that has been prosperous for a long time (and not experienced war or major disaster recently) many buildings and much of the infrastructure will usually have been there for a long time, whereas a place that does not have much existing assets has to spend a lot of their income on building such things. It is much like the difference between two households with exactly the same current income, but one household spends much of that income on rent whereas the others own a house on which they paid off the mortgage loan some years ago.

It sounds all logic to me, but is it original research, or appropriate having it in this article (quite elaborate for a list off-article), can we use it somewhere else? Van helsing 13:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Why isn't Hong Kong on the map?

It is #9 on the list. Contact the map creator for the image problem if there is one. SchmuckyTheCat 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what is a country and what is a sovereign state? 22:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

One color picture literally unreadable

On a high-contrast LCD monitor, 40k+ countries and 20k+ countries are completely undistinguishable, and 10k+ countries are indistinguishable from the former unless one looks VERY carefully. This image is much less informative than the multicolor copy. Practicality is more important than aestetics, put back the old image.

Agree, have put the old one back (sorry Distantbody). --Van helsing 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

September 2006 data available

The IMF has published their newest data for September 2006:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/weoselgr.aspx

(MD 08:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

Where's Iraq???

I have updated with 2006 data from the link above. This also removed the pro-US (insertion of CIA data into an IMF table resulting in higher rank) and pro-Lebanon (addition of another digit in front of figure) vandalism by unregistered users. Ajeleonard 10:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
We’ll better wait till this year (2006) is finished, though List of countries by GDP (PPP), 2006 would be a good place for it (second column). --Van helsing 12:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to change over to 2006 data now? We're well into 2007 :) MD 12:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
IMF updates their databases in April and September ([5]), I think that that update in April is the moment to wait for, not the fact that we’re in 2007 now. They probably need that time to collect and analyze all the 2006 data; that update in April 2007 will give more reliable figures than the current database of September 2006. Besides, we have List of countries by future GDP estimates (PPP) (note that "current" figures can only be based on previous years) --Van helsing 12:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

DPRK?

Where in the list can I find information about the DPRK? (Stefan2 06:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

List is incorrect

Ok,who totaly f***ed up the table,this is not the IMF ranking of estimates for 2005,for example in this list Croatia no.60 GDP 11,600,IMF website Croatia 2005. no.54 GDP 12,324,Serbia and Montenegro is listed twice with impossible GDP estimates...--BorgDrone 19:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok,the list is fixed,thnx to Polaron.--BorgDrone 23:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

According to the [CIA https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html] statictics the GDP of Azerbaijan is 4,800 not 4,600 little diference but could somebody update the numbers please Baku87 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an IMF list,there is a separate CIA World fact book statistics list.--BorgDrone 23:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourg or Bermuda

Data Interchanged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.33.162 (talk • contribs) (and reverted)--Van helsing 11:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If you where to read the CIA Factbook, you would find Luxembourgs GDP PC is $55,600, this is being replaced with Bermudas GDP for some reason.
https://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/lu.html#Econ
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.33.162 (talk • contribs)
Sorry, but maybe you should read the article and find this:
--Van helsing 11:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh

Yep..., and by the way, Welcome. --Van helsing 12:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ireland

Ireland appears to be on the list twice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.142.177 (talk • contribs)

Yep, for one day, and not anymore since three days, but thanks anyway. --Van helsing 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Update to 2007 estimates

I think we should update the list to the 2007 estimates. The articles of the individual countries list the 2007 estimates anyway, and sometimes they compare them to these 2005 datas, leading to incorrect rankings. Frigo 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Greece is incorrect

Greece should now be 14th on the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.160.165 (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Netherlands Antilles, Netherlands... but not Aruba

Just wondering: number 29 in the table is 'Netherlands Antilles, Netherlands'. Why isn't Aruba included?

According to Netherlands,

"The Netherlands ... is the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands ... which consists of the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles, and Aruba."

I would have thought the figure would be for either:

  • Netherlands [meaning the country in Europe]; or,
  • Kingdom of the Netherlands, or alternatively Aruba, Netherlands Antilles, Netherlands?

What have I missed here? --Shirt58 09:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The entities Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are listed separately by the used sources (see for instance the 3rd column in List of countries by GDP (PPP)). In this article, the source (IMF) didn’t provide the figures for Aruba (and we choose not to mix sources in one table for comparability reasons). --Van helsing 09:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I get the feeling that IMF includes Aruba in their Netherlands Antilles listings, and the CIA world fact book doesn’t (compare the columns in List of countries by GDP (PPP)). --Van helsing 09:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Qatar

I'm pretty sure Qatar is not 11th in the list. Apple 15:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the source it is. There is a lot of oil/gas and petrochemical industry there. --Van helsing 16:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


the list is confusing

the list is based upon two different systems of data: one system is the IMF estimation for 2005 - based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data, whereas the other system is the CIA estimation for 2006 - based upon the most updated data (including 2006 data). e.g. Israel's data are taken from the (most updated) data of the CIA, whereas most of the other countries are exhibited with the (less updated) data of the IMF. Please fix the list, either by updating the data for all other countries according to CIA estimation for 2006 (based upon the most updated data including 2006 data), or by giving all the countries the same (less updated) IMF estimation for 2005 (obtained by extrapolating 2004 data). Eliko 13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the wrong Israel entry. The listed values are intended to be identical to the IMF source. The Israel entry was vand… changed here, repaired. --Van helsing 10:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the IMF source is updated (including historical years) each half year. This one is from September 2006, not 2004. The next update is expected in April 2007. --Van helsing 10:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Van helsing

You've been absolutely wrong: what was published by the IMF in september 2006 - is an estimation for 2005 - based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data, and that's clearly declared in the very document of IMF. There are also further estimations for 2006 and even for 2007 - all of which based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data. Furthermore, Wikipedia has an article for all of these estimations, named: "List of countries by future GDP per capita estimates (PPP)". All of these estimations are based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data, making no use of more updated data. However, the data supplied by the CIA are based upon the most updated data - including 2006 data. e.g. in 2006 Equatorial Guinea became third in the world, since - in this year - much oil and gas was suddenly found in the country, but IMF doesn't even hint at this new fact, because IMF just extrapolated 2004 data (for the estimations of following years), so Equatorial Guinea is still located very low in the list of IMF, even in the estimates for 2006 and 2007 - which were unfortunately obtained by (extrapolating) 2004 data. Eliko 12:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you’re absolutely right. What’s the point in updating and publishing their databases twice a year without actually updating the data for each year? I got a very different picture from the answers they gave on their FAQ page: How often is the online WEO database updated? & How often are GDP estimates revised?. I thought IMF was one of the more “neutral” sources, but it seems they’re not exactly quick in supplying the newest info. Not sure which source is considered the best to use now (IMF, Worldbank, CIA) for all those GDP articles. --Van helsing 13:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me help you:
IMF has the official GDP reports (supplied by the countries), of which the most updated data are currently - as of 2004. These data facilitate IMF to make estimates for following years: The estimations included in our current article - refer to 2005, and they are only estimates for 2005 (based upon 2004 data), but there are other estimates for 2006 and 2007 (based upon the same 2004 data), and these estimates appear in the article: "List of countries by future GDP per capita estimates (PPP)".
The World Bank has the official GNP reports (supplied by the countries), of which the most updated data are currently - as of 2005, so the World Bank needs no estimations for calculating 2005 data. Therefore, the data exhibited by the World Bank are simply 2005 data (I assume you know the difference between GDP and GNP: the first refers to the money made in the given country, no matter which nationality the worker has, whereas GNP refers to the money made by all the citizens of the given country, no matter where the money has been made).
The CIA has no official reports (supplied by the countries), but information obtained by the intelligence service of the CIA. This infornation includes the most updated data the CIA could obtain (including 2006 data), and also estimations - when the data could not be obtained, thus making the whole "2006 estimate" (for most countries).Eliko 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I’m still surprised (which I shouldn’t be) that the most recent data the IMF uses to base their estimations on, is from 2004. So summarized:
  • IMF: official GDP reports sound appealing to use as a source (in a data reliability sense), but relative “old”
  • World Bank: official reports, supply GDP and GNI per capita but not GDP per capita (not appropriate for this article)
  • CIA: no "official" reports, but most up to date.
I would like to suggest to use both the IMF and CIA data in the article, in separate tables (like here and here), plus how recent the data is for each entry, plus the difference between the sources you give above (do we have a reference for your explanation, to use in the article?). --Van helsing 16:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Australia

I find the IMF results to be quite inaccurate. Either the IMF or the Australian Government have got it badly wrong according to this document (when comparing it to the IMF results): http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/aust.pdf (Mattrix18 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Identical in both cases ($ 30,897 - recent economic indicators: GDP per capita PPP (US$) (c) row, 2005(a) column). I’m actually surprised that there isn’t even one dollar difference, as it is supposed to be an estimate from IMF, the Australian department for foreign affairs and trade apparently trusts it to be correct . --Van helsing 11:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A problem

The name of the article - is "list of countries", but the two lists differ on defining the very term of "country". The IMF list deals mainly with (sovereign) states (plus two non-states: Netherlands Antilles - belonging to Netherlands, and Hong Kong - which is a part of China), whereas the CIA list deals - not only with (sovereign) states - but also with a lot of dependent territories (e.g. autonomous colonies, economic entities, and son on), thus adding other 31 non-states to the original list of the IMF. Here is the full list of 33 non-states (according to the order in the CIA list):

Bermuda, Jersey, Guernsey, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands (=Islas Malvinas), Macau, Aruba, Greenland, Puerto Rico, French Polynesia, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Guam, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cook Islands, Anguilla, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, American Samoa, Niue, Mayotte, Wallis and Futuna, Montserrat, Saint Helena, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Tokelau.

84.228.175.207 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Since the name of the article suggests that independent countries are being ranked in this page, I think we should omit information about non-sovereign states such as Bermuda, Jersey etc. If the Wikipedia community really wants to keep the information, I would recommend to put it in parenthesis, not rank it, or a similar alternative. Please give your opinion what we should do. Thanks, (Eddie 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC))
I agree. All of the 33 dependent territories - should really me indicated with their GDP figures, but shouldn't be ranked. Just as the "world" and the "european union" have been indicated with their GDP figures, but haven't been ranked.
Eliko 20:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Done it; followed the list of “non-countries” as stated by the topic starter. --Van helsing 07:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Profession 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I disagree, according to Basic Laws of Hong Kong, Hong Kong is an Special Administrative Region, which means, in other terms, independent territory. It has its own economy structure, own market, which is seperated from the mainland market. In addition, Hong Kong is often listed as a "country", it has its own internet TLD, own team in olympic games, own membership in APEC group, online registration forms often refers Hong Kong to a "country", because of its independent status. So, in this case, why should Hong Kong and other independent territories like Macau be ranked?
If Honk Kong and Macau are sovereign states - then why aren't they included in the list of sovereign states? 84.228.209.125 20:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Do you know the differences between country and sovereign state? Porkie Chopie 22:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

country can also be a dependent territory. 77.124.14.177 11:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Map should be updated according to the new 2006 figures

Eliko 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But they are all estimates, I think 2005 figures would be more proper in this case, same as in the List of countries by GDP (PPP).--kokpit | talk 20:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't make my point clear enough, so let me do that now: the map has been made according to the figures supplied by the IMF in September 2006. These figures are estimates for 2005, based on (extrapolating) 2004 data. However, in April 2007, the IMF supplied new figures, according to which the current version of our article was edited. These new figures are estimates for 2006, based on (extrapolating) 2005 data. Now, the map is not updated, since there are huge differencies - even between the estimates for 2005 (on which the map is based) and the correct data of 2005 (which were recently supplied by the IMF). Eliko 22:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I somehow failed to notice you are talking about map in the title. Map should be updated according to new IMF April/2007 data for sure, but: all 2006 figures in the table taken from last April IMF data release are just estimates and that's what I am talking about. I think more proper would be numbers for 2005, most of which are definitive. In any case we should come to agreement which numbers we will use in all these lists (since for example I updated List of countries by GDP (PPP) yesterday and I used 2005 data from April/07 IMF release...)--kokpit | talk 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your suggestion to indicate 2005 data (in the first list). I think that before we decide whether to have equality between the years in lists of two different articles (the current article and the second one you have edited), we should first of all decide whether to have inequality between the years of two lists in the current article: the IMF list and the CIA list. If we change the first list (the IMF list) from 2006 into 2005, then we should do the same with the second list (the CIA list). However, if we change the CIA list from 2006 into 2005, then this list won't be updated, since all of the figures in the current CIA list are based on the most updated data which were obtained by the intelligence unit of the CIA. Eliko 11:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally agree with this so let leave it as it is now. However the map should be updated in this article.--kokpit | talk 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

New Map

I made a new map. The last one was hard to read because some of the colors were too similar and the gaps were too big. Like 10,000-40,000 shouldn't have been the same color. Very large economic difference. I am pretty sure I made all the correct updates. Does everyone like it? Did I make any mistakes? -Brainboy109 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC

Yeah, now the colors are clearer, and the gaps are currently much more reasonable (the previous map had strange gaps as 0-250, 251-500, and also 6251-1000). I indicated all of that in the discussion page of the previous map.
However, are you sure Japan and Australia have now the same color (as they are expected to do)?
Eliko 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


why the hell has saudi gone down to 13,600 when a few days ago it was 13,800 per capita, please change to 2007 est. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unites (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

You are the person who changed it to 13,800, but the correct figure (in 2006) is 13,600 - as one can see in the CIA list. This article is intended to give the 2006 figures, not the 2007 figures, which haven't yet been supplied by the CIA.
Eliko 09:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

MAJOR CLEAN UP

this artical has suffered from major vanalism. someoone has changed it to an artical about tiolets per country and put a bunch of other stupid stuff. Can someone please fix it!

Done. --Van helsing 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

EU in lists

DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! —Nightstallion 09:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea

Somebody update the IMF rank with newer data. The country's per capita income has increased significantly in recent years, to #2 (2005), instead of #37 as ranked by the IMF. Aran|heru|nar 12:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You should refer to IMF - not to Wikipedia, which just submits IMF data - without determining whether or not these data are credible.
Eliko 18:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Map was updated

Map was updated.--Thin Film 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please tell us more about the difference between the two maps? Eliko 10:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The only changes (s)he made were incorrect GDP’s for Romania and Moldova, reverted. --Van helsing 10:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Romania's GPD/capita

Romania has a GPD/ capita of almost 10 000$, accordind to IMF, more precisely of 9 900, while Bulgaria's lower, with 9 600. In the map, Bulgaria is listed as a country with 10 000+ per capita, and Romania with lower -10 000, in yellow. I request the fast updating of the map. Thank you!

ComUSSR Friday, September 21st, 2007

I changed the map back to its correct version. Eliko 17:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Currency.

Could someone please verify what currency is used on this page. It is not made clear. ♠

219.89.240.102 06:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly indicated in the article that the currency used here is the international dollar. Eliko 08:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Angigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Libya, Mexico, Norway, Brazil, Poland, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Urugway

The estimates of those countries are based on data of 2005 (except for Trinidad and Tobago of which estimates are based on data of 2002), as one can see here 213.151.32.56 17:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Source

Source link is broken. I want to check that they really think Liberia's GDP per capita is 19 dollars. Someone please find a new source ASAP, I couldn't find one with a quick google search. Rm999 02:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Look here. Eliko 10:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

University of Pennsylvania stats -- necessary?

I think UPenn stats aren't necessary. They are outdated (most of data are of years 2003 and 2004) and only make this page messier.Sch614 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Penn data is a SOURCE for most of the info from both the CIA and IMF. So it's equally important. ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that the CIA and IMF use many sources, maybe even including UPenn, but I don't really think it's necessary to include the data of the latter. First of all, it certainly doesn't carry the authority of the CIA or IMF in such matters and secondly, the data is pretty old. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. If we include data from UPenn, what if Harvard published their own list, then the University of Sevilla, etc. I think the CIA and IMF are enough. TSO1D 12:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Besides the rankings are strangely different from the other two lists. If somebody wants to include it, he or she should explain why, say, Finland's GDP is $35,559 according to the IMF and 25,736 according to the "Penn World Table Version 6.2" or why Australia ranks 18th in IMF and 6th in Penn. Now the only function the "Penn list" seems to have is to stress the arbitrariness of all GDP PPP rankings (or that the folks at UPenn have made some pretty embarrassing mistakes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.70.16 (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think that just the IMF list should stay. The IMF is an international organization and is much more less biased than a Government Agency or a Penn University. Besides that, the IMF is an economic organization that produces such data, contrary to Penn University and CIA that have different roles and frankly I dont understand how could their data be as credible as the IMF's. Also one should note that on the individual articles of almost ALL countries, the GDP per capita data listed there are taken from IMF exclusively.77.83.25.104 (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Just the IMF list should stay. I don't think the University of Pennsylvania and the CIA world fact book are amoungst the top 3 most reliable sources in the entire world! IMF data is considered reliable from what I understand from doing Post grad Econ research. If thw UPenn data is used as a source for other institutions then rationally you would not quote the UPenn data by itself, that is like taking an election poll from one person. The IMF would have looked at this and other sources in coming to a conclusion.

CIA data

I don't think the CIA data is accurate and shouldn't be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.128.35 (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There can be a lot of discussion about CIA data. In the past, there had been a lot of "sins", as there were some politics involved. Who can forget their pre-1990 data, were communist countries' GDP was grossly exaggerated (often 2 to 3 times higher than respective - say - World Bank data!!!). According to late 1980's CIA data, Soviet Union's per capita income was more than 50% that of the U.S., Romania was almost two times richer than Portugal etc. etc. In an article in the Economist it was argued that this was a method to reflect a sense of "communist threat". In recent years, things have changed. If you look carefully, you'll see that CIA more or less follows World Bank' numbers; actually, its rounding-off of numbers is mathematically more correct, due to the huge margin of error of PPP estimates. There are still some minor "politics" in some numbers, though. Nonetheless, my opinion is that the tables in the Wikipedia should be those of IMF and World Bank, the two most credible and "unbiased" international organizations. Skartsis (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys do realize that the transition from communist to market economy basicely killed those economies. They have been getting rebuild. To state that the old date is inaccurate because of the way these economies are now, is simply stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funny4life (talk • contribs) 01:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and "Macedonia"

The self-declared and internationally unrecognised "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" should not be numbered as any normal sovereign state. According to Wikipedia's list of sovereign states, it is only included as one of the "states that claim sovereignty" (emphasis mine). Furthermore, the source cited, the CIA World Factbook, includes the data for northern Cyprus under Cyprus, not a separate entry. If it is to be included at all, it should be listed as Northern Cyprus, per the article's location on Wikipedia, and italicised as are the territories of all other internationally recognised states. As for the former Yugoslav Republic of "Macedonia", the "established term" on Wikipedia per WP:MOSMAC is "Republic of Macedonia", so I have extended User:ChrisO's recent edit to the other two columns. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I understand well your position; However:
The term "cyprus" in CIA report appears twice (one is for the real Cyprus, the socond being for the northern territory), and is undoubtedly a simple mistake.
The second table in the article - is intended to reflect CIA report, while the term used by CIA is rather "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus(TRNC)" - as you can see here.
No difference between Taiwan and TRNC: Both countries are indicated (in Wikipedia) as claiming sovereignty, but are not recognized by all countries: Taiwan is recognized by 27 countries (out of 192 UN members), while TRNC is recognized by Turkey only. Therefore, since Taiwan is indicated in the second table as a state (because it claims sovereignty and is recognized by "some" countries), so TRNC should be indicated in the second table as a state (because it claims sovereignty and is recognized by "some" countries - i.e: Turkey).
I hope you understand my position.
Eliko (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Except that Taiwan has its own entry, while the "TRNC" doesn't. Numbering it gives the false impression that the CIA recognises it as a separate entity, when in fact it treats it under the entry for Cyprus. I believe my version is a fair compromise, where the data are preserved but the territory is not numbered. Regardless of the name used by the CIA, which in fact uses "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" only in scare quotes and instead cites the PPP figure for the "area administered by Turkish Cypriots", Wikipedia has its own naming conventions. And on Wikipedia, the article is located at Northern Cyprus. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said in the beginning - I fully understand your position, wherefore I didn't revert your last version. Let me add that TRNC is not mentioned in the CIA list of countries, so your position is very reasonable and therefore acceptable.
Eliko (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

There has been an update of CIA data (2007 estimates) which should replace the ones posted. Also, when World Bank updated data are released, I think they should be used in place of the U Penn data (if there is a need for a third source). Skartsis (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I can't edit this page due to protection. I was going to add the 2007 est of gdp per capita, which needs to be added now. Anyway when will the world bank gdp per capita report be released? just asking. We also need a map showing the countries different datas.

Thank YOu. Bye. Muzammil01 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

CIA data need update

The 2008 World Factbook has been issued and has updated the GDP per capita list. Also, I believe the University of Pen data are totally out of date, wrong and thus the whole list should be removed because it creates confusion.77.83.46.166 (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been updated per 2008 CIA World Factbook. I don't think Upenn data are totally useless. A reader can clearly see that Upenn data are older than the other, yet these data could be of some value contary to limiting data sources from three to two. Greggerr (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Column order

The reason for the column order (CIA, Penn., IMF, WB) is due to the number of entries (countries and other entities) in each list. The CIA has the most entries, Penn. has less, and so on. It's not because I have some special preference over any list; that would be POV. We could also order them alphabetically, but what letter do you choose for each list? "C" for CIA? or "W" for World Factbook, etc.? ☆ CieloEstrellado 10:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Including Unrecognised states...

I was shocked when I saw the term Cyprus (island), Cyprus (southern) and Cyprus (northern). If we are to include in this list unrecognised states then we better include Abkhazia, Nagorno-Kabash, South Ossetia, Somali Land, Tamil Eelam and Transnistria to say the least. But they are not included so this feature needs to be removed. I will remove it personally in two weeks time if no one objects to this. User:WhiteMagick

First af all: relax. You're right, but you should understand the problem, and I'm sure we can solve it together.
Sovereign states which are recognized by UN (or IMF) - are ranked and are indicated by bold letters, while dependent territories - as well as entities not recognized by UN (nor by IMF) - are not ranked, and are indicated in italics - instead of bold letters. That's why Cyprus (state) is ranked, and is indicated by bold letters, while neither Cyprus (island) nor Northern Cyprus are ranked, and both of them are indicated in italics - not by bold letters.
You're right: Cyprus (state) is recognized by UN and by Wikipedia - as being named: Cyprus, not: Cyprus (state). However, the problem of that article stems from its sources: CIA gives three different values for Cyprus: the first value given by CIA is the average GDP PPP per capita in the whole island (i.e. including its northern part), and the second value given by CIA is the average GDP PPP per capita in the northern part only, while the third value given by CIA is the average GDP PPP per capita in the southern part only. Note that Wikipedia is committed to its sources, thus having to supply all of the (three) values, without omitting any one of them, and the problem has now been: how Wikipedia should distinguish between the three; So, due to technical reasons only, not substantial reasons at all, the local decision (i.e. in this article only) has been: to distinguish between Cyprus (island), Northern Cyprus, and Cyprus (state) - including a footnote which explains that the CIA value for "Cyprus (state)" considers the southern part (of the island) only; Thus everybody can know which value belongs to what entity. However, Wikipedia does not intend to determine any anti-Cyprus position regarding the political issue - which has already been resolved by UN: Cyprus only (which is named here: "Cyprus (state)" due to technical reasons only) - is a recognized sovereign state.
However, if you think you've got a better solution for the before-mentioned technical problem arising from the three CIA values - you're invited to suggest your proposal, and I'm sure the editors will accept it (provided your solution really solves the technical problem).
Have a nice day.
Eliko (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest Eliko. But giving the excuse because it is listed in the CIA value is simply invalid because it is a government controlled institute which will reflect the policies of the specific country. On the other hand (seemingly) independent organisations like the IMF (which is also specialised and more accurate on such matters) do not include it. If we include states which are not UN recognised in italics then we should include all of them irrelevant to whether data for them exist or not. The entry (without my interfierence) now writes (Turkish controlled). Only if this is changed to (occupied) then it will be acceptable on its own because it will coincide with UN decisions. User:WhiteMagick 22:49, 10 February 2008 (GMT)

The table is an unreadable nightmare

The list begins with Afghanistan: Silly! Pennsylvenia what?: Outdated! Please take look at other GDP list! If this is not fixed any time soon, I´ll reintroduce the old versions (IMF / CIA only) by myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.16.69 (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I have already warned User:Eliko and User:CieloEstrellado about resolving their dispute for this list, and yet they each continue to blindly revert each other's edits without making any compromise changes. I encourage them to reach consensus here on this talk page. The article has been fully protected for a week to stop the disputive ping-pong revert activity and allow for a consensus to be reached. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Blindly"? both of us have made much progress - from 8 dipsuted issues - to four disputed issues only, as far. This important progress has been achieved due to continuous common efforts involving constructive discussions on our talk pages, and I'm sure that the controversy may eventually fade away - thanks to these fruitful common discussions - which haven't been exhausted yet.
I'm going to copy now those discussions - here. Eliko (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a "blind revert" is what we call edits like this and this. There are no changes between revisions that show your preferred version, and between revisions that show CieloEstrellado's preferred version. Yes, over time I can see that the article has improved, but in between, you both continue to quickly hit the undo button when you see edits from the other. That is disruptive. Please sort out your remaining four issues here before returning to edit the article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
We're not going to make any forced progress until the page is unprotected, do you agree Eliko? ☆ CieloEstrellado 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I do agree, my friend, because I think that you're an honest person. Eliko (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's forcing you to do anything. This is a volunteer project, after all. I have asked that you try to resolve your differences, but if you would rather stay in your current position, that's your decision. If your edit-warring resumes after the protection expires, measures will be taken again to stop disruption. If you both abide by Wikipedia policy at that time, then nothing needs to be done. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You've failed. You've proved yourself to be nothing more than a disruption to this project. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Eliko's talk page

So far, just four points of controversy have remained between us (I and you only):

  1. I add the CIA value for Cyprus. Eliko (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    And I disagree. Read the Cyprus footnote in my version. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    I've read it, but you didn't explain why we souldn't indicate at least one of the three CIA values (for Cyprus) - just as we indicate values (for Cyprus) given by the other bodies. Choose one value (according to some criteria which you can choose too and which can be indicated in a footnote), but choose! By the way, your comment about "Korea, South" - is totally unclear (literally): Neither my version nor your version includes the term: "Korea, south" - but rather: "South Korea". I can't understand how the south korean issue relates to our discussion. Eliko (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    There is one CIA value for Cyprus in my version of the article: the one for Northern Cyprus, because it's only one, it's unambiguous. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    Right, it's unambiguous, just as the (single) value for southern Cyprus is unambiguous, just as the (single) value for the whole island is unambiguous. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    For Southern Cyprus, the CIA gives two values. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    Are you sure? two valus? For southern - Cyprus the CIA gives a single unambiguous value. The third value is not for southern Cyprus but rather for the whole island. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    We cannot have TWO values for Cyprus in the same table cell because it's ambiguous. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    Nobody has requested that we have two values in the same table cell. Each cell should have a single value: either for southern Cyprus or for the whole island. You could also have two cells (except for the "Northern Cyprus" cell and except for the "Cyprus" cell), i.e. a 3rd cell for the whole island and a 4th cell for southern Cyprus. I don't recommend this option, but I wouldn't reject it. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    And we cannot keep one and remove the other because we don't know which one is better, because the CIA does not provide info on what each value means. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    So how do you know which value (of the three) belongs to "Northern Cyprus"? Look, my friend (and I really consider you as my friend): We do know that the lowest value is for Northern Cyprus (don't you agree?), just as we do know that the average value is for the whole island (don't you agree?), just as we do know that the highest value is for southern Cyprus (don't you agree?). I can't see any difference between what you know about the value for Northern Cyprus and what you know about the value for southern Cyprus, so I can't figure out why your version discriminates between the values. Note that my version does not discriminate between the values, because my criterion (which accords with my opinion about the data supplied by the cypriot government) is that Wikipedia should omit average values (e.g. for the whole island) in international lists. However, since you do know well which value (of the three) belongs to what entity, so what are your criteria for discriminating between the value for Nortehrn Cyprus and the value for southern Cyprus? Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not changing my position here, so if you don't agree with me on this point, we're going to have to let the community decide. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    "let the community decide"? Well, the community has expressed it's unambiguous dissatisfaction with including the Penn. old data in the article (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of Penn. list? The community has also expressed it's dissatisfaction with the idea of merging the old tables to a unified table (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of the unified table? Do you agree to express here your agreement (in advance) to accept the opinion of the majority? I wouldn't reject any such idea of "letting the community decide" on all of the disputed issues. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. I add the footnote in the CIA section. Eliko (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree. It's redundant. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    That footnote (in the CIA section) makes the information clearer, since it summerizes within 2 lines only - some important information which is not easy to extract from the table! That's why this summerized information (in the footnote) is not needless - and is (in my opinion) even important! If you don't think it's important - don't read it, but you shouldn't prevent others from reading it. Let me give you an example: I think the fourth list of Penn. Univ. is totally needless, since it provides old information, so why don't I delete that table? because I say to myself: "If I don't think it's important - I can simply avoid reading it, but I shouldn't prevent others from reading it". that's what I say to myself with regard to the fourth list of Penn. Univ., and that's what you should say to yourself with regard to the CIA footnote. Eliko (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    This is redundant. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I, too, think that the Penn. old data are redundant. If you think it's redundant - don't read it, but you shouldn't prevent others from reading it. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not changing my position here, so if you don't agree with me on this point, we're going to have to let the community decide. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    "let the community decide"? Well, the community has expressed it's unambiguous dissatisfaction with including the Penn. old data in the article (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of Penn. list? The community has also expressed it's dissatisfaction with the idea of merging the old tables to a unified table (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of the unified table? Do you agree to express here your agreement (in advance) to accept the opinion of the majority? I wouldn't reject any such idea of "letting the community decide" on all of the disputed issues. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. I add the third column in the IMF list. Eliko (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree. Other sources don't have this info. Asymmetry of information. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Asymmetry of info.? So let's remove the third columns from CIA list and from Penn. list, because the other lists "don't have this info." and because we should avoid "Asymmetry of information"! Look my friend: if you think this piece of information (included in the third column of the first table) is needless (or "asymmetric") - avoid reading it, but you shouldn't prevent others from reading it! Eliko (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not changing my position here, so if you don't agree with me on this point, we're going to have to let the community decide.☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    "let the community decide"? Well, the community has expressed it's unambiguous dissatisfaction with including the Penn. old data in the article (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of Penn. list? The community has also expressed it's dissatisfaction with the idea of merging the old tables to a unified table (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of the unified table? Do you agree to express here your agreement (in advance) to accept the opinion of the majority? I wouldn't reject any such idea of "letting the community decide" on all of the disputed issues. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. I hold that IMF list should reflect 2006 data, not 2007 estimations. Eliko (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    CIA data for 2007 are also estimations. Why CIA in and IMF out? You say "because CIA estimates are based on data from 2007." You haven't provided solid proof of this. And, anyway, it's not important: both CIA and IMF are estimates, regardless of the years their data are based on. Both should be treated equally. Both in. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Both CIA and IMF are really treated equally (in my version): The article supplies just the data (given by CIA and by IMF) - not the estimation (given by these bodies)! Look: CIA values for 2007 are data (not estimations - despite the misleading term "est."), while IMF values for 2006 are data too, not like IMF values for 2007 - being estimates - not data. What has confused you - is the term "est." in CIA report, but it just means that the data were processed in some manner, and it doesn't mean that these figures are not data! For more information (including a response referring to your direct request for a "solid proof") - see in my recent comment of 3 February 2008: at 11:47 (in section no. 3). Eliko (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Besides the fact that you haven't provided proof for your CIA claim. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    I really haven't provided a direct proof (against your opinion stating that CIA values are estimates rather than data); However, I did provide an indirect proof - based on an instructive example - which you haven't refuted yet: Andorra's figure (being just an example here) is for 2005, and so far it has remained the same value - since 2005: i.e., CIA report published in 2005 - as well as CIA report published in 2006, as well as CIA report published in 2007, as well as CIA report published in the beginning of 2008, indicate Andorra's value as being "38,800, 2005 est.": the same value - since 2005. Now, my (indirect) proof goes as follows: if your opinion had been correct, and Andorra's value (for 2005) could have been an estimate only (rather than data) - i.e. could have been based on data before 2005 - then a very simple question would have arisen: why does CIA keep the old estimation? Why isn't the old CIA estimation updated for 2006, and for 2007, and for 2008? Look, if CIA can make an estimation for 2005 using data from previous years before 2005, then CIA can make estimations for 2006 (and for 2007 and for 2008) using data from previous years! This is simple mathematics! However, you see that CIA doesn't update Andorra's values (as well as other countries' values), and this is due to the sole remaining reason which refutes your before-mentioned opinion: CIA figures (which are named by the slightly-confusing term "est." in CIA report) - are based on online data: Andorra's value for 2005 is based on data of 2005, not on data of previous years before 2005; CIA can't update Andorra's figures, because any new estimation for 2006 (or 2007) must be based upon new data of 2006 (or 2007 - respectively), while CIA Inteligence Unit hasn't been able to achieve that new information - so far! That's why CIA doesn't update Andorra's old figure, so the riddle has now been solved and your before-mentioned opinion has been refuted! As I said before, Andorra's case (as well as other countries' case) is not a direct proof - but rather is an indirect proof based on an instructive example. If you want to get more information - we must get together (wherever you want), and I'll give you some more information: I can't elaborate here on that matter of how CIA collects its data and how CIA processes its data, nor can I detail here about my personal relation to all of that issue. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not going to dwell on it, because it's not the point. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    As you wish. However, nobody (including me) is authorized to base one's arguments (in favor of one's version) on one's wish "to avoid dwelling on another wikiped's argument". Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    The point is that estimates can be used whatever the quality of the data is. It's 2008 and the article should present data from 2007, if available. That's my line of thought. That's what I believe in. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    "the article should present data from 2007, if available"? I absolutely agree! However, There's one simple problem: no data from 2007 are available in IMF report! estimation only is available (for 2007 in IMF report). Furthermore: your "line of thought" (as you call it) is (in my opinion) also incosistent: Really, if you were consistent, then you should hold that the IMF values which will be presented on the article in the beginning of 2009 - should be for 2008 (just as you hold that the IMF values which should be presented on the artice in the beginning of 2008 - should be for 2007); but if so - then you should hold (again - due to apparent consistency) that the IMF values for 2008 should be presented on Wikipedia - before 2009 begins (e.g. in September 2008, i.e. without having to wait for 1 january 2009), because those data will be identical to the same 2008 values which (according to your apparently consistent position) should be presented (on the article) in the beginning of 2009, and because Wikipedia's universal objective is to publicize any relevant informatiom rather than to hide-it-as-if-it-were-a-secret; but if so - then why don't you hold (again - due to apparent consistency) that the article should present now (in the beginning 2008, i.e. without having to wait for September) the current IMF values for 2008? (note that no discrimination should exist between the current IMF 2008 values and the 2008 values which will be published by the IMF in September). The argument of "2008 is not over yet" is not valid, because also before 2009 (i.e. in September 2008) - IMF will have the same 2008 estimation which IMF will have in the beginning of 2009 - and which (according to your apparently consistent posion) should be presented on the article in the beginning of 2009, whereas Wikipedia's universal objective is to publicize any relevant information (i.e. data - in my opinion, or even estimates - in your opinion), rather than to hide-it-as-if-it-were-a-secret! Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not changing my position here, so if you don't agree with me on this point, we're going to have to let the community decide. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    "let the community decide"? Well, the community has expressed it's unambiguous dissatisfaction with including the Penn. old data in the article (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of Penn. list? The community has also expressed it's dissatisfaction with the idea of merging the old tables to a unified table (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of the unified table? Do you agree to express here your agreement (in advance) to accept the opinion of the majority? I wouldn't reject any such idea of "letting the community decide" on all of the disputed issues. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuation: CIA news on Cyprus

Yesterday, February 12 2008, the CIA updated its World Factbook information on Cyprus (updated version here).

Here I present both before and after versions:

Before

This is the version updated as of January 24 2008, available thanks to the Google cache (link here):

  • GDP (purchasing power parity):
    • area under government control: $21.41 billion; $19.37 billion
    • area administered by Turkish Cypriots: $4.54 billion (2007 est.)
  • GDP (official exchange rate):
    • area under government control: $17.42 billion $17.42 billion (2007 est.)
  • GDP - real growth rate:
    • area under government control: 3.9%; 3.9%
    • area administered by Turkish Cypriots: 10.6% (2007 est.)
  • GDP - per capita (PPP):
    • area under government control: $27,100 $24,600
    • area administered by Turkish Cypriots: $7,135 (2007 est.)

After

This is the latest version updated as of February 12 2008 (link here):

  • GDP (purchasing power parity):
    • area under government control: $21.41 billion
    • area administered by Turkish Cypriots: $4.54 billion (2007 est.)
  • GDP (official exchange rate):
    • area under government control: $17.42 billion (2007 est.)
  • GDP - real growth rate:
    • area under government control: 3.9%
    • area administered by Turkish Cypriots: 10.6% (2007 est.)
  • GDP - per capita (PPP):
    • area under government control: $27,100
    • area administered by Turkish Cypriots: $7,135 (2007 est.)

As you can see, the CIA has now removed the second value in "GDP (purchasing power parity) / area under government control," "GDP (official exchange rate) / area under government control," "GDP - real growth rate / area under government control" and "GDP - per capita (PPP) / area under government control."

What this means is that the second value (now removed) was an error made by the CIA that they've now corrected.

Now the CIA value for Cyprus will be included, as it is only one. ☆ CieloEstrellado 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello my friend: that's great, becaute it means that the gap beween us is now diminished, so that just 3 disputed issues have remained. I've copied this information - from my talk page - to the article talk page (thus showing that our discussions are fruitful). Now we will have to think together how to bridge the gap still remaining with regard to the other 3 issues. Have you got any constructive idea?
Eliko (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ranking malfunction

The order is presented numerically correct when sorted by the IMF numbers, but not by the other methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.207.6 (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorting by GDP per capita works great. ☆ CieloEstrellado 19:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On most columns, sorting is alphabetical not numerical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.9.19 (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestine

Actually, if you look carefully you'll see that the figures for the West Bank and Gaza are not a mere coincidence, as in the case of Tokelau and American Samoa or Guam and New Caledonia. The figure for the former "(includes Gaza Strip)" and vice versa. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, but CIA has split them because each of them is controlled by a separate body (which does not recognize the other one). Wikipedia is committed to citing its sources, rather than to making its sources undergo any external interpretation. SSnormal (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! And that policy extends to the names used for this list of nations. I took a look at all four sources, and found that of the 230 potential entries on this list, 197 of them are consistent with the names they use for each country (taking into account trivial style differences such "Trinidad & Tobago" and "St. Lucia" instead of "Trinidad and Tobago" and "Saint Lucia"). For example, all four sources use "Côte d'Ivoire" (by itself), and all four sources use "Gambia, The", sorted under "G" and not "T". Why should this list override the source data? I've prepared a table showing the few nations that are named differently depending on the source, plus my suggestion for what we do on this list.
IMF World Bank CIA Factbook Penn Suggested
Afghanistan, Rep. of. Afghanistan Afghanistan Afghanistan  Afghanistan
Antigua and Barbuda Antigua and Barbuda Antigua and Barbuda Antigua  Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas, The Bahamas, The Bahamas, The Bahamas  Bahamas, The
Brunei Darussalam Brunei Darussalam Brunei Brunei  Brunei
Myanmar Myanmar Burma  Burma
Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dem. Rep.  Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Republic of Congo, Rep. Congo, Republic of the Congo, Republic of  Congo, Republic of the
Egypt Egypt, Arab Rep. Egypt Egypt  Egypt
Faeroe Islands Faroe Islands  Faroe Islands
West Bank and Gaza Gaza Strip  Gaza Strip
Channel Islands Guernsey  Guernsey
Hong Kong SAR Hong Kong, China Hong Kong Hong Kong  Hong Kong
Iran, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Rep. Iran Iran  Iran
Channel Islands Jersey  Jersey
Korea, Dem. Rep. Korea, North Korea, Dem. Rep.  Korea, Democratic People's Republic of or  Korea, North (either works for me)
Korea Korea, Rep. Korea, South Korea, Republic of  Korea, Republic of or  Korea, South (either works for me)
Kyrgyz Republic Kyrgyz Republic Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan  Kyrgyzstan
Lao People's Democratic Republic Lao PDR Laos Laos  Laos
Macao, China Macau Macao  Macau
Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYR Macedonia Macedonia  Macedonia, Republic of (per WP:MOSMAC)
Micronesia, Fed. Sts. Micronesia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fed. Sts.  Federated States of Micronesia
Russia Russian Federation Russia Russia  Russia
Slovak Republic Slovak Republic Slovakia Slovak Republic  Slovakia
Syrian Arab Republic Syrian Arab Republic Syria Syria  Syria
Taiwan Province of China Taiwan Taiwan  Taiwan
Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of Timor-Leste Timor-Leste  Timor-Leste
Venezuela Venezuela, RB Venezuela Venezuela  Venezuela
Virgin Islands (U.S.) Virgin Islands  U.S. Virgin Islands
West Bank and Gaza West Bank  West Bank
Yemen, Republic of Yemen, Rep. Yemen Yemen  Yemen

Other comments:

  • The World Bank has a single entry for "Channel Islands", but the CIA Factbook has individual entries for Jersey and Guernsey. I think we should have separate rows in this list for Jersey and Guernsey, with a footnote in the WB column explaining their combined "Channel Islands" data.
  • The World Bank has a single entry for "West Bank and Gaza", but the CIA Factbook has individual entries for West Bank and Gaza Strip. I think we should have separate rows in this list for West Bank and Gaza Strip, with a footnote in the WB column explaining their combined data.
  • Penn has old data for Serbia and Montenegro, whereas the other three sources have separate data for Serbia and Montenegro (IMF doesn't have Montenegro yet). I think we should have individual rows for Serbia and Montenegro, and put the same Penn data for both entries with a footnote explaining their combined data.

— Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept all - except for Ivory Coast and East Timor: When I say "Wikipedia should cite" - I mean: "english wikipedia should cite (of course after translating the terms into english)". For example, I think that when giving the french president's statements - the english wikipedia should cite his statements - of course after translating them into english. The same with Ivory Coast and East Timor. Furthermore, if the english sources had given foreign names (including proper names, e.g. Espania) which have an eglish version (e.g. Spain) - then the english Wikipedia should have translated them as well. That's why I think that "Timor Leste" should be changed to "East Timor". SSnormal (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. The IMF website, World Bank document, CIA World Factbook, and University of Pennsylvania website are ALL written completely in English, and Côte d'Ivoire and Timor-Leste are used exclusively. Country names are proper nouns, so no "translation" is necessary. Your comparison to statements made in a foreign language is inappropriate. The English translation of "Côte d'Ivoire est un pays d'Afrique" is "Côte d'Ivoire is a country in Africa", by the same rules that the English translation of "Mr. Côte est un homme" is "Mr. Côte is a man", not "Mr. Coast is a man". Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to give me the link for proper name (as if I had never heard of this term), because I myself have used this term in my previous comment, and of course I know its meaning very well. Some proper names (though not all of them) do have translations. For example: "(Mr.) Côte" or "(Mr.) Sarkozy" do not have translations, while "Espania" - as well as "Nederlanden" - do. Ask the BBC and they'll tell you that the english term is "Ivory Coast". Furthermore, this is the original name of the country (Côte d'Ivoire)!
The fact that four english sources prefer the french name - is due to their commmitment to the ivorian governmental resolution (of translating the english original name into french), while the english wikipedia's commitment is to the english language (into which every citation should be translated on wikipedia). That's why any "Espania" in any english document (had it existed) - should have been translated into "Spain" on english Wikipedia. No difference between Spain, Netherlands, Ivory Coast, and East Timor. Hope this helps. SSnormal (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep mentioning "Espania" [sic], since there are no instances anywhere that "España" is used to identify Spain in English language documents. Your argument is utterly specious. I don't know why you mention the BBC, as they are not a source for this article. I don't know why you place such value on the "original" name of the country — it is now 2008, not 1985. I don't know why you want to disregard Wikipedia consensus that the article name is Côte d'Ivoire by using a different form. Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you mentioned the absence of english language documents using "Espania" - after I utterly made it clear that I referred to "any 'Espania' in any english document - had it existed..." (i.e. I simply claimed that just as we would have translated into english any "Espania" - appearing in any english document - had it existed, so we would have to translate into english any "Côte d'Ivoire" and any "Timor Leste" appearing in english documents). I mentioned the BBC because the BBC uses Ivory Coast (rather than Côte d'Ivoire) now in 2008 and not only in 1985. I don't know why you want to disregard Wikipedia consensus that the article name is East Timor by using a different form. Hope this helps. SSnormal (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am against putting combined data into uncombined entities. That's just misleading, even with a footnote. Wikipedia shouldn't mislead users, even in good faith. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

Do you have the data for Scotland? It would be very interesting to see where Scotland sits in the table. Alan, Scotland.

I'm glad you find it interesting to see where Scotland sits. Has it ever occured to you that Scotland is actually part of the United Kingdom? You should check the UK page out. This list only includes soverign states. The UK is a soverign state; England, Wales, Scotland & NI aren't. W2ch00 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus again

The reason the data for northern Cyprus should be attached to the Cypriot flag is because that is how the territory is treated by the CIA, i.e. as the Turkish-held part of the Republic of Cyprus, hence the single Cypriot entry with two sets of data. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The TRNC is a separate political entity with its own separate economic data. Placing an RoC flag next to it is simply factually false (and note the CIA is not the only source being used here). --A.Garnet (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, in this case, yes it is. The only economic data for the territory are those provided by the CIA, which clearly and unambiguously includes them under the Cypriot flag. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

editprotected

The last version which was protected - is mistakenly a fourth revert which violates the 3RR. Please undo the fourth (illegal) revert.

Here are the four reverts:

  1. Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
  2. On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
  3. On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
  4. On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
  5. On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.

To sum up: please undo this last version - being the fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn the editor, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} template removed. No, the article is not going to be reverted, Eliko. You have brought this issue to the attention of several admins already and on WP:AN3. Quit canvassing. -- tariqabjotu 13:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do you say "canvassing"? My request on the noticeboard was removed (not archived but rather: removed), and that's why I referred to other admins who may see the objective problem. If you don't see the objective problem - say "I don't see any problem", etc., but please don't prevent me from taking legitimate steps for solving what I consider as an objective problem.
Anyway, I didn't ask you to undo the "wrong" version (since nobody can determine that previous versions are "better"), but rather to undo the version which violates the 3RR. Such a request is absolutlely legitimate and backed by objective criteria (not like any hypothetical request for subjectively preferring a "better" version over a "wrong" version). If you don't think that a version which violates the 3RR is illegal, then you're welcome to express your opinion (as emphatically as you can), and I promise that your opinion will be taken into account - just as opposite opinions of other administrators will be taken into account.
Why did you remove the {editprotected} template from my request on the article talk page? This template on the talk page is an integral part of my request. I don't want my request to be presented partly. Please put back the template, or remove my request wholly from the talk page (if you think that my request is illegitimate). Choose either alternative, but I don't want my request to be presented partly, because presenting my request partly - does not reflect my request.
Eliko (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

List of countries with rankings

I don't understand why the table didn't list top down ranking with the highest GDP PPP per capita listing first if it is listing under "list of countries with rankings"?? for the reference provided by World Bank (no.3) is not correct; it is not GDP PPP per capita but GDP PPP instead. Coloane (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Click the little arrows at the top of the colums. Sbw01f (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea

There is an apparent mistake: Equatorial Guinea can't be 31st with about 23k. They are now 7th or 8th. Some prankster messing around I feel. Please Change

That "prankster" is known as IMF. Blame it on them. —Cantus…☎ 22:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Another prankster moved Ecuatorial Guinea to 129th despite the IMF sayying that their GDP PPP per capita is $33,994 and should be in 7th in the list. Please revert changes. Check here

Now someone should ask themselves: Is an African nation with 30% unemployment among the 10 wealthiest nations in the world? Or could the IMF contain an error? Which is more likely? Also consider that the CIA Factbook gives the figure $2700 per capita.

Please revert to the reverted changes. Check here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ek.html

Cantus is claiming that $60 oil has caused per capita gdp to skyrocket. Looking at this, it seems they are producing 350,000 barrels a day, which at $60 a barrel comes to $21 million per day, or nearly $8 billion a year. The population of the country is tiny, 535,000 people. So the additional $8 billion divided by the tiny population gives an additional $14,000 or so in per capita gdp. Adjust for purchasing power parity, and you could get something like $34,000 a year. So maybe E.G. does properly belong in the top 10 after all. Good for them. TimShell 07:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
This makes no sense: Cantus has not documented his claim (the IMF link only links to Wikipedia's article on this institution, without any direct reference to Equatorial Guinea at all) and, according to the data contained,in the article on Equatorial Guinea, sourced in the CIA factbook, this republic has a GDP (PPP) per capita of just $2,229, making it the 138th in the list, between Sudan and Mauritania.
I have the feeling that Cantus is making some sort of undocumented vandalization of this list. What makes me quite angry, specially because he is a registered user with apparent dedication. Yet he has insistently reverted EG to the 6th post without any documentation to back it. --Sugaar 15:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It appears Cantus may be correct. The CIA factbook now reports $50,200 (2005 data) up from $2,700 in their previous survey. My apologies Cantus, it seems you were right all along. Very strange but it appears true. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ek.html Jan 25, 2006

Yet another example of why PPP is a really bad way of measuring a country's GDP, nominal figures give a much better view of the relative standards of living. PPP relies on complicated calculations of the cost of living for which there may be little in the way of accurate data - last year's sudden slashing of China's PPP GDP by 40% because of a change in the data used to calculate the cost of living was the final straw for me as far as this is concerned. 138.37.250.195 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just Curious

I have to ask: how can the GDP per capita for any country be reported for the year 2005 as of August 1, 2005?

Another question: Luxembourg always comes in number 1 by way of some nebulous "accounting anomaly". Does anyone know exactly what this anomaly consists of?

On the Luxembourg question, commuting is likely to be a large part of it. GDP measures the value of output produced within a country's borders. This means that if, say, a Frenchman lives in France and commutes to work each day in a French owned factory sited in Luxembourg, the value of his output is all counted as part of Luxembourg's GDP (even though it is the French that are getting all the benefit). A large number of commuters commute into Luxembourg (I think it's something like a quarter of the workforce), so Luxembourg's GDP includes their output, even though they are not in Luxembourg's population figures. So it's likely that this has inflated Luxembourg's per capita GDP figure. Enchanter 18:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

As well as the vast amount of income that Luxembourg makes from being host to many EU institutions 138.37.250.195 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan

Taiwan is under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China and should be labelled as such. This list ignored various overlapping claims made by various governments and presents the de facto situation. Please do not label it as being part of the PRC. That is POV. --Jiang 09:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The PRC has never exercised sovereignty over Taiwan. They want to promote the idea that there is exactly One China, and that the geographic region of Taiwan is part of that notion of China. Howver, they are deliberately vague about who, if anyone, represents that One China. In order for both sides to agree on this issue (as attempted for example in 1992), the PRC cannot claim that China equals the PRC, as the ROC would never agree to that. Part of our duty is to report all relevant sides of an issue, and since this issue is complex, it requires one or more whole articles; political status of Taiwan is a good place to start. However, we also have a duty to report what is real and factual. In this case, we cannot hope to reduce a complex issue to a simple short description, but we clearly need simple short descriptions, and in such a situation it's best to pick descriptions that are grounded in reality. --MarkSweep✍ 10:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I would have thought the most appropriate label is just "Taiwan". There is absolutely no disagreement or controversy about where the borders of Taiwan are - it's the name of an island. The political controversy over whether that island ought to belong to the PRC or the ROC or be independent is completely irrelevant to this article, which is just giving the GDP per capita of people living on that island. Enchanter 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The Republic of China governs not only the island of Taiwan, but also the islands of Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. (Stefan2 06:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

The vast majority of countries, including US, officially declare Taiwan as part of China. Is there a reason on this wiki to separate out? Should we also separate out New York City from USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.2.60 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason, that reason is that Taiwan has never been part of the same political entity as the PRC, standards of living in Taiwan are much higher than in mainland China as a result. 138.37.250.195 (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel 30,000?

Since when has israel had a GDP per cap greater than 30,000? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.176.243 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC).


I also was surprised, last time I checked it was around 24-25,000. I know that Israel has a strong economic growth these last years, but I can't understand how can the GDP per capita jump 20% in one or two years. But I checked the IMF data and that is the correct figure. Maybe the former data was incorrect. 85.65.242.45 13:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
IMF regularly updates its PPP index estimates (i.e., price index based on which the nominal per capita income becomes PPP). In the case of Israel IMF recently made a major correction (simply put, comparative price levels were determined to be lower than estimated before, thus PPP jumped higher). The same happened with Cyprus and, later, Greece (where we also have the GDP revision, still not finalized) Skartsis 15:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Another example of why it is better to use the nominal GDP figures instead of PPP 138.37.250.195 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Something Wrong Here

  • 18. Flag of Australia Australia 33,037 2004
  • 19. Flag of Greece Greece 33,004 2005
  • 20. Flag of Japan Japan 32,530 2005
  • 21. Flag of France France 31,825 2006
  • 22. Flag of Israel Israel 31,561 2005
  • 23. Flag of Germany Germany 31,390 2006
  • 24. Flag of Italy Italy 31,051 2005

I won'tbother editing what is a clearly nationalist bravado by some Greek t**t, but wiki should really be more accurate otherwise no one is going to use source as relaible.

BTW PPP(EU estimate) for Greece was 86.5% of EU avrage, EU avrage is 30200 U$ giving Greece 26120 USD. This was data for 2006 btw, how Greece got to 33000 U$ is beyond me. 88.110.60.12 16:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Greece's figure is accurate, as was provided in the recent report of the International Monetary Fund - here. Eliko 18:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please let's try to keep the scientific nature of this issue. The IMF data for Greece include two revisions that lead to increase, one for the PPP index as calculated by the IMF (along with Cyprus and Israel) and one due to Greece's GDP revision. As the latter was subsequently corrected - a much lower revision was finally agreed with Eurostat in Oct 07 - it is natural to expect a relevant correction by the IMF in its next release. Data for Greece are "prone" to some uncertainty, due to this country's huge - and difficult to measure - black economy. Correct value of Greece's GDP should be about 100% of EU27 average. Skartsis 15:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right, and money grows on trees in Greece as well. Plz change it down to 26 000 USD as stated by EUstat. And I looked on IMF sites, it states Greece at 23000 usd not 33 000 usd.

According to the new Eurostat GDP PPP Greece was boosted to 98% of the EU average which will justify the IMF as well for its figure for 33004 GDP PPP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.32.101 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I get 36,982 when I request the data for 2008. So this is definitely what the IMF says. 193.132.242.1 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

More problems with PPP calculations, let's just go back to nominal dollar values, they are much less prone to sudden changes like this 138.37.250.195 (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Map

{{editprotected}} Could someone insert this map at the top right of the article, please and thanks? Image:GDP_PPP_Per_Capita_Worldmap_2007_CIA_factbook.PNG

 Done Please sign your talk-page comments in future. Happy‑melon 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan/ROC

160.39.195.88 changed "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to "Taiwan". — Instantnood 16:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Umm... and what's the problem with that? Enchanter 13:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed "Republic of China" to "Taiwan(R.O.C)", because "Republic of China" may confuse many people with "People Republic of China," namely China. --Nicolehayashi 16:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, one way to solve that problem is to make sure there is a Wiki-link. And the (R.O.C.) might also confuse peopel. the way things are now are the way they should be: the official name of the country is given first (perhaps abbreviated if it's quite long, as is the case for Venezuela and Macedonia), and then the unofficial name in parentheses if such is useful: Republic of China (Taiwan), Republic of Korea (South Korea), Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). etc. Interlingua talk email 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and also: Republic of Congo (Zair). HOOTmag (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template?

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
(2) Rank of country’s HDI;
(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about the interest on this HDI but I want to suggest another index: the Economist's worldwide quality-of-life index (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf). When the main article will be unprotected I suggest to at least add this and the HDI to the external links for fast retrieval. --79.24.146.76 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I've found that most subjective things that come from that organization are extremely biased, and I don't think that has any place in this article. I'm fine with HDI, but a "quality of life" chart by an organization such as The Economist, I strongly oppose. Sbw01f (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
While I can agree that The Economist is biased, I'm not sure that that index includes subjective values as you suppose. I will read how it's done, then I'll continue this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.24.146.76 (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorting Problems

{{editprotected}} The sorting feature does not work properly with Safari.  Selecting any of the buttons only sorts by country name.  Knappster (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, I find no problem. The buttons work properly.

Pennsylvania University figures

Is there any legitimate reason to keep that table up, despite the fact that it's very dated and that we already have two uptodate tables from more reliable sources listed? I don't see how the information could be of any use to anyone keeping in mind this isn't a historic article, and in my opinion it makes the whole page look amateurish and cluttered. Sbw01f (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Read here and here for commentary on why it is important that we present users with different lists of GDP (PPP) per capita from different institutions. I'm also going to include a fourth list, by the World Bank. ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure the World Bank has a GDP (PPP) list? Where?
Eliko (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


I, too wonder why those out-dated, non-credible data from a Penn University should be kept. First of all those data are 4 years old at best. Second, Penn Unicersity is neither an economic organization nor a credible reliable reference source such as CIA. I really wonder why this list is kept!77.83.43.254 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the importance of presenting information from different sources, but I think it's equally as important to make sure we only present credible, up-to-date info. I would be ok with listing 10 credible lists if they existed, but I would still opt to remove the University figures simply for the fact that 3-4 year old data is quite useless in the context of this article.

Sbw01f (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The article should present users with the newest data (2007 or earlier) that is available from all relevant institutions. If you read those two links I gave you, you will notice that the UN itself uses Penn data as source. That's how credible it is. ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I dont know where the UN gets its data from, but the thing is that those data that are presented are from 2004 (!!) which is way old. Its just doesnt make sense to have IMF and CIA data from 2006 and 2007 and right next to it, Penn data from 2004 with totally different data for each coutnry. I propose either to ease this list and keep those two lists, or replace it with the most recent World Bank list.77.83.43.254 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Useless and outdated data! The column should be removed. 3 references are sufficient, credible enough, and more readable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.9.81 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the data. It makes the article too squashed and is out of date. --Bsrboy 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

I've tried to remove the data, but for some reason the user CieloEstrellado undid my changes saying that I had no support or consensus (4 for, 1 against, sound like reasonable support to me). Sbw01f (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Order

Why is this in alphabetical order and not in order of GDP per capita (descending)? Should it not be both?W2ch00 (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I found it much better the way it was .. in order of GDP per Capita descending. Can we please change it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.98.205 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


I wholeheartedly agree, this is an outrage! I call upon the Wikipedians to fix this bullshit, set it back to the way it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.203.211 (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Sort by rank is broken as well - 1,10,100, etc. Sorting should be in natural order rather than ascii order for numerical values —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.135.27 (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Don't use bad talk on a public G-Rated discussion, 71.211.203.211.

United Kingdom Constituent Countries

I would like to see GDP (PPP) per capita for each Constituent Country: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I think it is needed seeing as the European Union is on here. I do not want it ranked, but just the data included in this table. Any thoughts? Bsrboy 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How would any of us go about getting that information? Sbw01f (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On an article on wikipedia it says England's GDP per capita is 26 904 euros in 2004 [6]. It's worth a look. Bsrboy 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

Sorting by rank, the orders are all messed up (i.e. 10 comes before 100, 101...)

--130.113.189.90 (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

PENN DATA

What is the reason of having those outdated, wrong, misleading data from Penn University? If there is a reason, for that same reason we could add data from Bangladesh University from 1990. I really cant understand it. Could someone explain it to me?Aee1980 (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The only reason it's still up is because of one stubborn editor who does not have any support to keep it up keeps reverting its removal. Apparently the word consensus means nothing to him. Go ahead and remove it if you wish though, I fully support removing it, I just don't want to bother with edit wars. Sbw01f (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Take it down. Bsrboy 14:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

Could someone just take it down? I would do it but I dont have the time right now to do it. But I'll make sure the correction it stays there. Please someone take down the Penn data.Aee1980 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to attempt the task then do it correctly and complete it, otherwise don't bother at all, Aee1980. El Greco(talk) 15:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right El Greco sorry about that. Something went wrong during my edit. Thanks for the correction:)Aee1980 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Woo, it's gone! (Bsrboy 16:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

Sbw01f, you said there was an "overwhelming" concensus reached. Where? All I see are a few IPs, some newly registered accounts and only two legitimate users (Bsrboy and you) advocating for the removal of the Penn. data. That is not overwhleming concensus as I understand the concept. ☆ CieloEstrellado 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I really cant understand you CieloEstrellado. Are you working for the Penn University?? Thats about the only explanation I can give for that persistence of yours to used those outaded crappy data. How on earth can you persist on adding data back from 2000 or 2003 when the presend date is 2008? You know one of the real big advantages of Wikipedia is the fact that it can stay up to date. Otherwise, I would use my Encyclopedia from 1960. And its not that you want to add something that doesnt change too much over time. If you added on how the lion eats, I would say ok whether the data is from 1800's or 2000 its all the same, cause the lion eats the same way all the time. But when we talk about GDP per capita, which changes all the time, you just CANT insist on adding data which are 5 or 7 years old. No how, no way!Aee1980 (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a total of 7 different users who are for removal, and only one against. It's not up to you to decide what a "legit" user is. This article belongs to anyone and everyone who cares enough to make good faith edits, and that includes first time users. You don't control this article or any other. Sbw01f (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I was implying that these "users" are probably just sockpuppets of another user. ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Then maybe you should report your suspicions at the appropriate place (though after checking edit histories, it seems your suspicions are unfounded, certainly not a legit reason to revert edits made by an established user). In the mean time, there are two unique IPs and three established users who support removing it, so the consensus is still overwhelmingly in favour of removal. Sbw01f (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Plus the most imprortant reason for removal I would add, is the fact that those data are crappy and outdated. Would CieloEstrellado kindly reply my previous question, on why he is so persistent in adding crappy outdated data?Aee1980 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I can understand outdated, but "crappy"? Care to explain how the data are "crappy"? ☆ CieloEstrellado 18:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Care to explain why you persist with keeping the data up there? Bsrboy (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 19:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok at least CieloEstrellado, you recognise that those Penn data are way outdated. So in essence you realize how wrong you are, trying to iclude them and ruin the whole article. When I say crappy data I mean that if I enter a data in the Earth article that says that Earth is in fact FLAT and not rounded, based on 600 b.c data, then everyone will say to me: What a bunch of crappy things you present us, not to say anything even worse.Aee1980 (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

hello, I have noticed there was data's from some university, but why do we need data from them, the World Bank, CIA and IMF - all of these data are more reliable because it's not from a university, I dont think it's needed. Moshino31 (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we have it? We should probably not have 10 of them, I don't think a fourth one will be too much (Also the question arises, why should that university's data be less reliable/important than, say CIA's data) Why is the data from a university not reliable? That's absurd. UPenn is one of the leading universities in the world, and I'm guessing that their professors are highly qualified researchers. Anyway, I checked the IMF data. For instance, the data for Greece is based on year 2005, whereas the university data was based on year 2004. The report is itself from year 2006. Greece's GDP PPP/p appears to be 18k on the UPenn study, I hope that's not the problem. Anyway, year of IMF's data on Albania, Equador, Equatorial Guinea, ... is 2001, whereas UPenn's data is newer (2004) for those countries. So UPenn study has more recent data, should we delete IMF?

No,and if me or you and anyone else continues the discussion on the "IMF" could they please start a new section for it (this bit's getting rather long now). Bsrboy 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

I'm not saying we should delete IMF data, I'm saying that the reasonings mentioned above do not work, as UPenn study has more recent data for a good number of countries. I think, we can have all 4 of them, but list the years for all of the studies (IMF and World Bank ones as well), and let the reader decide. Currently the table is misleading, as IMF data is not based on the same year, so we need to mention the years as well, and if it won't take too much work, we should mark the most recent data for each country, in my opinion. Anyway, I'm out, do what you want. I am an old wiki editor who decided to stop editing months ago, I don't want to start again (at least now, and I shouldn't have made this second edit). Sorry for all the commotion. a renegade wiki editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.202.45 (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The IMF bases their estimates for the year 2007 on data from previous years, but all the estimates are for one year: 2007. ☆ CieloEstrellado 12:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

CIA data of Bangladesh

For some reason the CIA have suddenly changed their information of the economy of Bangladesh. For example the GDP purchasing power parity has decreased very big, from $340 billion to $209 billion - are they saying there has been a great drop of the economy, because the growth rate seems to have increased to 6%, which is why the GDP per capita has gone down to a thousand, where do these guys get this information from??? The IMF and World Bank seem to have a clear type of information but CIA - very confusing!? Same goes for India!

That is because the CIA is using new updated data for their GDP PPP estimates. As they say on their site:
Additionally, the data for GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) has been rebased using new PPP conversion rates, benchmarked to the year 2005, which were released on 17 December 2007 by the International Comparison Program (ICP). The 2005 PPP data replace previous estimates, many from studies dating to 1993 or earlier. The preliminary ICP report provides estimates of internationally comparable price levels and the relative purchasing power of currencies for 146 countries. The 2005 benchmark revises downward the size of the world economy in PPP terms from the previous estimates, and changes the relative sizes of many of the world's economies.
So the CIA has actually more accurate PPP info than either the IMF or the World Bank at this stage. Penn data uses this updated data too, but you people prefer inaccurate estimates for 2007 than more accurate data for 2004. See this IMF article too. ☆ CieloEstrellado 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008 World Bank data

...have been finally published. You all remember the discussion about the new PPP estimates by the IMF and WB, according to which e.g. Chinese and Indian values have been drastically decreased, etc etc. The IMF data (April 2008) have already been posted in this article. The WB data (still for 2006, WB will take some more time to publish data for 2007) are now out. They can be found here - although in a format that should make their transfer difficult. WB seems to be avoiding the errors made by the IMF (by the way, I agree that in the IMF column footnotes should be added to the data for Malta, Cyprus and Myanmar that are wrong). Skartsis (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please order the countries from richest to poorest instead of A-Z.

That way, we can see what we are on the list.

The list is sortable, click on the little button along the column heading to sort with respect to that column value. --SMS Talk 21:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Average map

Would anyone object to me replacing the dated world bank map with one showing countries above and below the world average gdp ppp per capita? Sbw01f (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Numeric Sorting

Right now the sorting is broken. When sorting by a number it does it alphabetically, rather than value. For example, it sorts the rankings as 1,10,100,101 instead of 1,2,3,4. I tried to fix this myself but can't figure it out. --Fidodo (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a known issue that apparently cannot be fixed at this time. See up above in this talk page for more info. Soap Talk/Contributions 01:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar

According to the IMF, Myanmar's GDP is $5 per capita? Am I missing something? That's about 2% of Zimbabwe's. CIA estimates Myanmar's GDP as $1900, a full 380 times IMF's estimate. -- Mattbrundage (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

I was reading by accident the Mediation Cabal and I must say that Eliko has a point in some of his requests.

  1. CIA footnote -Eliko are simply more accurate.
  2. IMF year column - the IMF year column removal was a huge loss in terms of information accuracy. Some countries only conduct PPP measurements once every 10 years and that column helped address that problem.
  3. IMF year- Whenever consolidated number are available, those numbers should be used. Unless if the consolidated numbers are too old then we should use estimates but otherwise no.

In all, I really would like to see the IMF year column restored. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

3 days and no responses, I guess I can add the information back then.
I hate taking unilateral decision, it just seems hostile. I prefer to talk things over and reach and agreement. But I mean, nobody wants to talk to me.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I talked it over with Eliko so I decided not to pursue this issue any further.
I really wished to see the changes but I don't have the time.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The data of China

Why has the GDP per capita of China dropped drastically from $7700 in 2006 to $5300 in 2007 according to the CIA world fact book? Is this a mistake?203.218.204.9 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

recent data from the world bank suggested that China's GDP was overstated by as much as 40%, that is probably the reason for the drop.

April 2008 IMF data

The data for Malta is a laugh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.235.82 (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed it too. It is the same case for Cyprus where the GDP PPP per capita jumped from 31,500 to 46,500. A possible reason for this gross miscalculation could be the adoption of the EURO. I am pretty sure that the adoption of the EURO did not have such a profound effect on the incomes of the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I followed footnote 1 to the IMF data and saw that the figure for Malta was 22907. I double checked the Qatar, Luxembourg and Norway figures and they all matched (Wikipedia/IMF). But the Malta figure ought to be updated in Wikipedia. Lars. Lars (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the United Kingdom's GDP has fallen?

I am NOT entirely sure but I would give this explanation: Since this list of the IMF measures GDP Purchasing Power Parity then probably the inflation in the UK was bigger than its growth last year that would mean that the purchasing power of the country decreased. But I am not entirely sure. This is probably a wrong explanation since I am not an economist. I still waiting to see if Cyprus' and Malta's figures are changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...odd? Bsrboy (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Argentina's GDP per capita has fallen too, from 17500 to 13300, does anyone know why if the GDP has growth 8,7% in 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italodal (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that grossly overestimated data allowed Argentina to be considered the "most developed country in Latin America" for quite a number of years, due to the Human Development Index using this outdated PPP data. Chile will now happily take its place. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The one and only reason why GDP PPP per capita values have changed (dramatically in some cases) is because the IMF is using updated PPP exchange rates released by the International Comparison Program on December 17, 2007 (see section "CIA data of Bangladesh" above.) This is the product of a worldwide effort to collect pricing information for thousands of products in dozens of countries to allow comparisons among them. It's a hugely complex operation that was last done in 1993, I think. The new PPP info is now based on pricing info from 2005 not 1993. That is why the PPP values have changed so dramatically in some cases. ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just updated the GDP PPP list by IMF and noticed some huge changes too, but the list actually coincides with the CIA data pretty well now and seems a lot more accurate. But now we have to put up with new people reverting the changes because "my country went down so much it's not fair they must be wrong.." sigh. Although Myanmar going from 140,209 to 300 was a little odd. I wonder if that's a mistake or if I'm just not up to date on their economic situation. Sbw01f (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You updated all that information? That's insane ♥Hogan♥ (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Myanmar is listed as having an annual nominal GDP of $5. Is this due to some rampant crazy inflation that caused everyone's incomes to go to trash at the end of the year? I'd have thought Zimbabwe would be the one to have a number like that if inflation were to blame. Soap Talk/Contributions 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just updated the IMF map to the newer IMF PPP facts. I am not sure if i really believe the accuracy of the Malta (or Cyprus) facts but they are official figures and the map should refer to those.


As for those wondering why some countries (actually most of Europe) slipped down some places, i guess it´s because a change of metodology rather than inflation figures wich were very low in 2007 while growth was very robust in many cases like the UK, and Ireland, Spain, Netherlands and Greece too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxbasealpha (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that this is the PPP page and not the nominal GDP page. Which means that .. come on, that Myanmar data has got to be a mistake. Economic depressions happen, but I've never heard of a depression in which people are literally living on 0.2% of what they made the previous year, even after adjusting for changes in the cost of living. And yes I went to the IMF site and the number is there. So do you agree with me that number is wrong, and should it be tagged as dubious, despite reporting the source correctly, or is there something I'm not aware of that makes changes like $2432 --> $5 actually possible? Soap Talk/Contributions 15:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've compared both IMF reports (October 2007 and April 2008). The only variable that has really changed for Myanmar is the so called "Implied PPP conversion rate" (In 2007, from 172.107 in Oct. '07 to 79087.460 in Apr. '08.) That variable is the one responsible for the change in both GDP PPP and GDP PPP per capita. Neither the population estimates nor the GDP data have changed. Myanmar has also kept its currency unchanged. Myanmar's GDP (nominal) per capita in 2007 was 234.707. I've never seen such a difference in nominal and PPP values within a country. There's something wrong here or this is a really rare exception. ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately IMF, although together with World Bank is the most "neutral" and thus credible organization, does seem to make some technical errors when dealing with PPP conversions. Imagine that the PPP factor can vary greatly based on assumptions, and thus drastically change the final result. Malta's data are wrong, and so are those for Cyprus (it is enough to compare with Eurostat data, which, since these countries are EU members, are their own official data), and so are those for Myanmar (5 $) and so were earlier those for Liberia (17$ or something); Israel's number shot up earlier to come down again now, and so on. What is worse, these data will remain there until the next release - logically in October. World Bank seems to be much more "careful", while CIA is at least mathematically more correct as it rounds off figures. Recently there has been some debate about changes in the PPP calculation (not to be confused with the errors mentioned above); we are all waiting WB's official release of its revised data. Skartsis (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree there seems to be a mistake with Myanmar data. Please compare these stats about Myanmar from respective IMF World Outlook databases: april07 db, oct07 db, april08 db Apparently, inflation turned out be less than expected, and we still have that huge discrepancy between "implied PPP conversion rates".
  • Anyway, I don't know if it happens since I am an anonymous editor, but when I try to sort the table in increasing order (rankings), I get -'s on top (the ones with no data). And when I sort it in decreasing order, it is sorted by reverse lexicographic order. So, #1 at the end, #10 just before #1, #100 just before #10. I guess, it happens since the numbers are regarded as strings due to -'s at the beginning. Can you please check whether it happens since I am anonymous? thanks i a. I guess, any visitor will most likely see -'s on top when s/he sorts the table to see the rankings. It might be related to cookies set by the browser. I am using Firefox 3b5.
I think that happens for everybody. There's a commented-out line in the article itself which indicates that there is a problem with the sorting. Soap Talk/Contributions 21:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think rank column should come after GDP PPP/capita values, not before. Is there a consensus on that?
  • I believe about 10 countries' (including Cyprus, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Israel, Oman, Saudi Arabia) WB data are missing. Their GDP PPP is listed here, which is the reference for WB data for GDP PPP values on the main page. This is for the population, if anyone wants to calculate the GDP PPP per capita's for those countries. For Cyprus it's 21,318 = 16,308/.765. Kuwait: 25,677
  • List of countries by GDP (PPP) uses 2005 data, and the columns are split there. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually according to the links you gave the GDP PPP for Cyprus would be 19960/771= 25,888 User:WhiteMagick 17:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that they have recently updated it. For Kuwait it became 110,421/2.599 = 42,485. Amazing increase. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That increase is amazing however it is because of the massive oil increases and they might not in fact be that accurate because people's income more or less remains the same. it's the coffers of the companies that produce the oil that are swelling. What I am interested to know is now the EURO has affected the purchasing power of its newest members, Cyprus and Malta, because they had very favourable exchange rates with the Euro. The IMF increase might be justified because of that but such a massive increase probably not, especially in the case of Malta whose GDP PPP increased by almost 30,000 while Cyprus' by half of that. I'm also waiting to see how the CIA changes their figures. Remarkably enough most figures from the IMF now coincide with the CIA. User:WhiteMagick 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this: "Note: To sort the table in descending order, click four times on the square above the column you wish to sort by." Sorry I haven't noticed it before. I have a few more suggestions. I think we should move the worldwide average to the lead, and erase it from the table. Also, I think we should not have the averages for EU, ASEAN, OECD, OPEC, OIC, NATO, NAFTA, ..., even UN. They can be listed in the respective articles (their data can be mentioned in the lead). What US/CIA considers as a country should not be the reason we list them as a country. I do not have as strong opinion on this, but I don't think we should list "British overseas territories", etc. either, even if one of the sources give their data (due to the title of the article). Most likely, other sources include those overseas territories under UK, so they will be double counted (even if they don't affect UK GDP much). We can list the CIA-only ones separately (there is no IMF-only, or WB-only one). We need a footnote for Myanmar. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorting buttons

To sort the table in descending order, click four times on the square above the column you wish to sort by.

These sorting buttons are a mess, why don't just have three normal tables in column sorted by rank as in List of countries by GDP (PPP)? --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

congratulations!

It's a Muslim Country; Qatar, now has the highest GDP (PPP) per capita in the world!! just taken over Luxermburg! CIA lits is now updated! please check!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lichtenstein is. The data for it used to be on here, but it's randomly disappeared. bsrboy (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Data for Liechtenstein is here, it's just old (1999). And if it were updated to 2007, I doubt it would rank higher than Qatar. But Liechtenstein *is* number one on List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. ☆ CieloEstrellado 08:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes. I'm always get these articles mixed up. bsrboy (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cia Update

The Cia List has been updated for some countries. Thank You.

Shakaib (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done The CIA has updated its values to coincide with those from the IMF, so both lists are now within 100 dollars of each other in all countries except Myanmar, Fiji, Afghanistan, Cyprus and Malta. Cyprus, Malta and Myanmar were later corrected by the IMF, but the CIA didn't follow and is now using the old IMF values for the first two. ☆ CieloEstrellado 08:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand, why have they done this? they're all just the same s IMF. Wierd. I thought they had their own body. Shakaib (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see how the IMF and the World Bank can explain 38,000 Greeks in Cyprus if the wages are higher in Greece rather than Cyprus when it is a well known fact between Greek-Cypriots and mainland Greeks that Cyprus has considerably higher wages compared to Greece. Something is at fault. Unless Cyprus has a massive unrecorded grey/black economy. WhiteMagick (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate GDP World Maps

It seems to me that it is a bit redundant to have both the CIA and IMF world maps for GDP (PPP) per capita since they contain essentially the same data. I recommend removing one of them. The CIA version is in the preferred SVG format, but I do like the color scheme of the IMF version a little better. What are some other thoughts? Thatoneguy89 (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be biased towards the IMF, though. As it stand we have two maps from the CIA, one from the IMF and none from the World Bank. I agree with you on the colour scheme; we should reach a consensus for map colours across all GDP related articles. bsrboy (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Brunei

I think there's a mistake, Brunei is ranked very high on this list with over $50,000 per capita, while the main article on the country says that it only has $24,826 per capita. Am I missing something? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is out of date. It says that the data is for 2005 in the infobox. Someone should update it, as well as the other GDP statistics. bsrboy (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorting

In both IE 7 and Firefox 2, sorting by the supposedly numerical fields sorts the data as if the data is in string format (for example, 1 < 101 < 5, instead of 1 < 5 < 101). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.3.62.227 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange thing is: the first time you sort the IMF Rank, it works well (at least on this IE7 browser), second time ranking and other ranks give the same problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.56.153.180 (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem confirmed in Firefox 3 RC. This should really be fixed... totally annoying. 85.224.7.253 (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be fixed now... Momet (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorting does not work

Sorting countries by rank does not work properly. If I click on the sorting button, I see the country in lexycographical ordering 1, 10, 100, 101, 102, ..., 2, 20, 21 etc instead of the natural ordering 1,2,3,4,... I do not know how to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.125 (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

{{nts}} should be used to make the numbers sort properly. Gary King (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Where would you put this tag? Perhaps you can just do it. The sorting is an ever recurring issue on this page... Tomeasy T C 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Done Gary King (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
How did you do this? Do you have a script to perform this action? Thanks for your great efforts.
Some small comments the year data looks weird with the , behind the millennium. Also, I do not really understand how the sorting algorithm works now, but (clicking on the CIA column) it does not loop anymore. Namely, it's not possible to get the poorest countries on top of the list anymore once you have clicked twice. Tomeasy T C 17:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I used a search pattern to add the {{nts}} template to whatever needed it. I have removed it from years now so they should be fine again. CIA column should sort properly; let me know if it doesn't work right now? Also, try scrolling down because sometimes the N/As can get in the way. Gary King (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Try yourself. What I described above still does not work. BTW, the CIA column has no N/A.Tomeasy T C 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed Gary King (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Great! Perfect work. Tomeasy T C 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This method puts all the N/A's at the top of the list. Not good. I have absolutely no problem with the good old "click twice" method. I use Safari and it works. ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What good old method are you referring to? I know only an old method, but that was not good. You cannot call any implementation good that causes another talk section every two months with the same complaint.
The old method has the same problem with the N/As. Just try to list the countries with increasing values,, starting with the poorest. On top of the list you will find all N/As.
The solution has been implemented by Gary King. I am sure that it will cause less of these discussions in the future. You will see, if you just give it a try. The old method had its try long enough. Tomeasy T C

See this video I made, where I show that sorting does work. ☆ CieloEstrellado 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Before putting so much effort in making a video, why don't you read carefully what I wrote? "The old method has the same problem with the N/As. Just try to list the countries with increasing values,, starting with the poorest. On top of the list you will find all N/As." Your video shows this problem very well.
Why do you ignore the fact that clicking 4 times is not a solution as it is just not executed by unprepared readers. They rather turn to open a talk page section to report a bug. Tomeasy T C 08:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Most people will want to sort in descending order, not ascending, therefore having N/A on ascending order should not be a problem for most users. By the way, if you have a Mac, doing a video like that is nothing ;0) ☆ CieloEstrellado 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
So finally you understood me and you also see now that the N/A problem exists for both solutions. The only difference being one problem occurs for ascending and the other one for descending. To still make your case you claim that one is more important than the other. This is original research at its best. I really claim that people can be quite as interested seeing a ranking of the poorest countries as they are to see the richest.
With this unsupported, sole argument you want to impose a technology here that continually causes trouble and confuses users--not even giving a promising, potential solution a try. Say, has ever happened that anyone convinced you to change your mind? Tomeasy T C 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

IMF Map

I removed this map, since it isn't really correct. See the Talk page of this picture for information. H2ppyme (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The color value for Botswana is correct. the one for Lesotho might also be correct, but it's difficult to really say what it is, because the country is so small.
Before you erase something next time, you would do good to at least check the value at the source. You would have found that Botswana's GDP PPP is 16,400, like for a rich country, if you want, and that your claim it is visualized incorrectly is simply wrong. Tomeasy T C 17:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Before you think you have solved the problem, think again. I was talking about Estonia, which is three colours incorrect (value is 21,094. Removing it again. H2ppyme (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Show the diff where you were talking about Estonia!
Next time you see a problem with a file, point it out clearly and do not waste our time with a vague hint to a talk page. Also, if you see a mistake, fix it. That will be much more appreciated than deleting content. Tomeasy T C 08:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, what is wrong about pointing out the image's talk page, where the image's many errors are revealed. And yes, if I see a mistake, I fix it, only thing is, I am not going to change images on Wikipedia (sort of like, "not my thing"). When someone has a problem with such map, they should address it to the talk page, as it was done by someone else, regarding Estonia. As long as there still are major mistakes on that map, I removed it, until someone (i.e. the image's author) corrects the mistakes. And OK, I will show you the diff where I was talking about Estonia...(and other countries).
All data is from IMF:
Country ; GDP (PPP) per capita ; current colour ; right colour
Estonia ; 21,094 ; 5-10,000 (although two islands are 15-20,000) ; 20-30,000
Malta ; 22,907 ; 30,000+ ; 20-30,000
Cyprus ; 27,429 ; 10-15,000 ; 20-30,000
Rwanda ; 899 ; 20-30,000 ; 0-1,000
Djibouti ; 2,271 ; 20-30,000 ; 1-3,000
Singapore ; 49,714 ; - ; 30,000+
Spain ; Balearic islands are not coloured
Bahamas ; some islands are not coloured
Papua New Guinew ; some of its islands are under the colour of the Solomon islands
Now, as long these mistakes aren't fixed, this image shouldn't be used here. H2ppyme (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I followed your objection and went to the talk page, where I looked into the last issue that was discussed. It was about Botswana. I checked this case, and the map turned out to be correct. Can you understand the irritation you caused by your vague hint? Now, you tell me I should have read the whole talk page! Thank you. Then you claimed I was talking about Estonia. No, you were not, rather: you should have been talking about Estonia, in order to save my time. Since I am getting a bit annoyed here, I would really like to see the diff showing when you talked about Estonia, i.e., when this information slipped me.
WP is free for everyone to edit. This applies to images as well. The author of the image does not own it. It can be helpful to contact them, but it is certainly more helpful to drop the reluctance with respect to constructive image editing. You have compiled a nice to-do list, so get started!
BTW, I agree with you that there are too many mistakes to publish the current version. Tomeasy T C 16:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it seems I should have mentioned Estonia (among others), but this talk page wasn't so extremely long and as I understood, the other mistakes hadn't been repaired either. And yes, I agree this is kind of "my fault" that I don't "do" images, but everyone has their own "style" here in Wikipedia. Thanks. H2ppyme (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

rank

How about ranking the countries by highest GDP per Capita. Also, how about not using PPP also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but somehow users like Tomeasy don't want that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.214.17 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Rank first

Shouldn't the rank be the default selection in this article?

Like in the articles of these countries, it says 1st, 4th, 15th and so on. If you press the link on those numbers in those articles, people come to this list, and expect to find the country they clicked on to be at the rank they wanted to find. And therefore it should not be in an alphabetic order. Just a thought. 83.108.236.203 (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But the three lists have different ranks, if you see the problem. Tomeasy T C 19:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah but the rank that says number 1 2 3 and so on, why not just make that a default? Its there for a reason... So that it starts with number one, and ends on the last one, and for those who are not ranked, it can be at alphabetic order. 83.108.236.203 (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Once again: There are three list combined in one table. The rank number of which list would you choose to govern the sequence? This is the problem. We decided to rank the three institutions equally. Hence, the defaul listing is alphabetically. Tomeasy T C 10:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't even get the rank to work for any of the 3 lists! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.131.205 (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the list doesn't work - it treats the dash as a reason to start the rank over again! zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the system has screwed up completely. Tomeasy T C 10:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The list treats the numbers as text. Can we revert to the old version where the tables were separate? --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nameing and listing of the National Republic of China, Taiwan

Please join the discussion of this subject here. Tomeasy T C 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


mexico gets extra 0

some prankster has boosted mexico's figures, but forgot to update the ranking too :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with sort

How can we make it sort as numbers, not text? As it is when I click to sort by rank, it goes 1, 10, 11, 100, etc, completely useless. Emeraldemon (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


are you insane ordering it by alphabet, how is someone supposed to get an overview???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.228.15 (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

GUYS THIS IS NOT SERIOUS

We should establish a list of countries by ranking, not like that, its confusing. I think we should begin since the reading of this important talk to should complete such a long list. Historian19 14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Table is screwed up": Another vote for

(1) The default ordering of the table should be by "Rank" from "richest" per capita to "poorest".
(2) There's a nasty glitch in the table software. Instructions say "To sort the table in descending order, click twice on the square above the column you wish to sort by." If I sort by Rank: "descending" ("poorest to richest"), table displays correctly. (Starts with four non-ranked countries, then Burundi at #179, etc.) However, when I attempt to sort by Rank: "ascending" ("richest to poorest"), displays by first digit of rank: i.e.

Rank
- - - -
1
10
100
101
102
...
108
109
11
110
111
112
...
118
119
12
120

This is Wrong, and needs to fixed.
-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with (2), disagree with (1).
The table contains data as published by three different sources. Which one would you like to use to produce the ranking? Tomeasy T C 18:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Provide three separate columns, one for each source, as is done with various estimates of world population at World population estimates. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just I do not see why the linked page is an example for your proposition. There, as is the case here, the columns are rigidly connected and sorting would affect all columns.
Is this list an example of how you propose to go ahead? Tomeasy T C 19:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I am speaking as layperson familar with reading tables but not with creating them. :-) The linked page was my example because I was not aware of any other example. :-) If you know of better example, please by all means refer to that. The list that you suggested is not similar to what I had in mind. The table currently at List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita has eight columns, one of which is "Rank". Per your clarification that we actually have three different sources for "Rank", my proposal would be to substitute a very similar table with ten columns, substituting for the existing one "Rank" column three columns: "Rank according to Foo", "Rank according to Bar", etc., and with the table sortable by those columns so that user could sort according to their preferred source. As I say, I am layperson and have no idea whether implementing this is trivial or equivalent to invasion of Normandy -- it's just what strikes me as best solution for random user of this chart. (And by all means, I still think that sorting bug needs to be addressed as per User:Tcncv's post below.) Thanks much. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I also think the sorting bug needs to be addressed, see my agreement with (2) above. Unfortunately, this is a long standing ever recurring issue, and there is one editor who persistently reverts advances as proposed by the link that Tcncv provided. Therefore, I was focusing on your other suggestion, which is still unclear to me.
"List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita has eight columns, one of which is Rank" Hm, there must be a weird misunderstanding between us. I see three of eight columns as rank. Each column shows the rank with respect to one of the three source. Please clarify this before I go ahead, because the remainder of your comment above depends on this. Tomeasy T C 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Heck. Looks like "weird misunderstanding" may equal "carelessness on my part". I'm going to try to figure out what I was looking at before and get back to you. If you do see what's the correct thing to do, please don't wait for me -- now I'm not even sure whether I had a valid point. (Starting to wonder about early-onset Alzheimer's ...) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, things like this happen to everyone from time to time. Since you seem to care about what you are doing, let me encourage you to get yourself an account. I am sure can help Wikipedia here, and elsewhere, a lot. Tomeasy T C 22:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
See the related response in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Broken table ordering, articles on GDP. -- Tcncv (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

CIA data

CIA data for 2008 (GDP per capita) have been published. It looks that they follow more WB estimates this time. Skartsis (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan IMF ranking 28 ??

IMF Ranking for Pakistan showing 28 together with Greece ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanuraj (talk • contribs) 16:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong entry data

Its clearly seen that is a typo error. It should have been 128. The position 128 is missing in the IMF Ranking !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanuraj (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant

What's the point of having a link to Indian states' GDP? Seems pretty much irrelevant to me. CaptainFugu (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

IMF data isn't sorting properly

IMF data isn't sorting properly. It is sorting all the ones first whether they are 1,000 or 10,000 or 100. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Useless list

Trying to use these lists in this article is hopelessly hard. It would be much better to make a list like this: http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdas_land_etter_bruttonasjonalprodukt_per_innbyggjar or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... 83.108.208.23 (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Norsk" one needs an update :). It was already suggested. We can have some vote or something. Rave92 (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

IMF April 2009

These data were published yesterday (April 22). Also, the maps (IMF, CIA) need some updating. Congratulations for the great work, anyway (I read a lot of criticism for details, but actually a lot of credit is due to those who put together such great - continuously updated - articles). The availability of an on-line medium with such an amazing wealth of updated information is something we couldn't dream of, even a few years earlier; it is clearly a product of a lot of hard work which has to be appreciated. Skartsis (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Organized Terribly

Shouldn't this list be based on high to low? Not alphabetically? It's fun to look at countries and see their ranks... So why is it in alphabetical order? That's not a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krajowandleap (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but to come with CIA or WB rank? We can maybe have a vote about should we organize it by rank. Rave92 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to have three independent columns, like on List of countries by GDP (PPP). --Anna Lincoln (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I completely second that. This system is badly broken. Oreo Priest talk 15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
So I did a bit of digging in the history, and it seems like CieloEstrellado changed it from that system, which works, to this sortable disaster in February of last year with no consensus or mention on the talk page. The data presentation was much, much better and much more clear with that system. I really think we should change it back. Thoughts? -Oreo Priest talk 15:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to sort (sic) out the sorting and it will more or less work on the rank columns now. However, I agree with everyone above as to what the best solution would be. Bagunceiro (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
CieloEstrellado doesn't like that, apparently. What was the problem? Bagunceiro (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Great! CielEstreallado sorted it all out. Thanks! I put the images back in their traditional place; while it looked nice, if your resolution wasn't high enough, the article had a horizontal scrollbar. If their were some way to make a thumb size a fraction of the page width instead of a fixed number of pixels, it should work better. Either way, I look forward to seeing this for GDP nominal as well! -Oreo Priest talk 21:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

IMF data for Brazil shown here looks wrong

The 2009 IMF data for Brazil shows per capita GDP as 10,325.796, a long way from the 38,830 shown here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.15.147 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Then just fix it. Rave92(talk) 13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The World Bank published the 2008 figures today (July 1, 2009)

The World Bank published the GDP and Population figures for 2008 today, so the article needs to be updated. 208.79.239.160 (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Where I can find it? --Wilder 1989 (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about Acrobat (the data are in pdf form) one could look here Skartsis (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done ☆ CieloEstrellado 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Great job CieloEstrellado for taking the time to update the list!!! Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can this WB info be used on Infobox about country like the info about PPP? As for the most the IMF one is used... Rave92(talk) 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

CIA

By the CIA Factbook, GDP PPP of Montenegro is 10,100, not 9,700. Rave92(talk) 10:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

EU and EUROZONE

These should ONLY be included when the original source has them. Otherwise it is Original Research. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Using commas in country names

Does everyone agree on using commas in countries to be able to sort them alphabetically? For example, China, People's Republic of instead of People's Republic of China? If nobody is against the use of commas, I will change the article accordingly. Pristino (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why we would do that? It's not like countries are set alphabetically but by their GDP PPP. Rave92(talk) 12:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See my comment at....

Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)#Why does the list exclude .....--222.64.18.96 (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh ranked first?

Bangladesh ranked first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.134.195 (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Serbia abova average on Map 2

According to the CIA List, Serbia has 10,800 so above World-Average of 10,400. Thus on the 2nd Map Serbia should be in blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.205.10 (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong's Data

The insertion of Hong Kong's unofficial data into the official data does not put into consideration that it would hinder the already calculated results for China. One must make a note of this. Hardassteel (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

still 2008 ?? is this a joke?

Is there no-one in here to update the data since 2008 ? omg.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.113.71 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

List of cities/conurbations/metropolitan areas by GDP

Is there any list on the GDP per capita of cities, conurbations or metropolitan areas? — Instantnood 09:32 Mar 7 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to feature the number of developing countries (and their population) by continent? I have not been able to find this information anywhere else. Thank you.

updates

I've recalculated data down to "Russia" on the list of countries by total GDP, someone else needs to complete this.

Tunisia

what about Tunisia?

American abnormal GDP

A thing with much GDP per thing of an American is not what I can be proud of. A thing from each other G7 countries with many 5,000 dollars - 10,000 dollars is abnormal, too. An American of low wage includes it, too, and a number swells because I waste it borrowing money.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.145.14.86 (talk • contribs)

Equitoreal Guinea

GDP only 16,000, cia factbook says it is third with a gdp of 50,000, just type in cia factbook in google

Map is Incorrectly Labeled

The map indicates that the data is "US $". In fact, the IMF's PPP data is given in International $s. --Pandyora

Informations

Are bad. Poland has too low per capita, than in reality. Sad, people thinking misuse.

  • Yes, that's right. Poland has too low GDP per capita than it's really. It's $ 16,600. It should have been updated because some one would think that Poland is such a poor country like never. Please fix it and do not update the data from the earlier years which are outdated.

PPP is going to change on 2008

No one has mentioned that the ranking of PPP is going to change on 2008 so these results are going to be outdated, South America and Europe have yet given results without giving us international dollars.

By the other hand, where is the GNI PPP per capita World Bank ranking?... i guess it is a nice source http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf

EU figures must be included !!!!!

This is not "List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita"

As far as i can see, this page is about "GDP per capita by countries ", considering countries are listed alphabetically.85.102.162.226 (talk · contribs)

Removal of year information from CIA list

User:Khalidshou insists on removing the data year for countries in the CIA list (here and here), while misleadingly putting "2009" in the heading as if all the values in the list were from 2009 only. I kindly ask Khalidshou to stop doing this. Pristino (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If our data is based on different years for different countries, then we must have the year information in every row. Tomeasy T C 08:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep. I have no idea why Khalidshou is doing this. Pristino (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

2009 data

I noticed Kosovo was taken off the list. It was in the 2008 lists, now it's not. Could someone double check this please? --Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Percent of Average

Recently, I have deleted the column for how many percent about the average a country is. However, the way I calculated the average was hardest, taking the plain average of the values of the first column of the table. That average does not take into account the populations of the countries or the economic power of the countries. Coming up with a better way of calculating the average would be helpful. Given we are interested in the figures per capita, taking the populations of the countries as the weight for building a weighted average rather than plain average would probably be the best way to do it.

You last suggestion was right. Much easier, however, would be to divide the GDP PPP of the world by its population. Tomeasy T C 19:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

PPP and level of life

Does PPP per capita realy depict relation between salaries and prices?For example it's somewhat hard to believe for me that Greeks (PPP 32.100$) and Spaniards (PPP 33.700$) live basicaly as good as Germans (PPP 34.200$).I thought there should be remarkeable difference in level of life between those countries.Where is it possible to obtain more true comparison in prices and salaries coefficient for different countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juggernaut

Thanks god people in all these countries do earn more than thirty something dollars a year ;-)
Something that might help to acknowledge these figures is that GDP per capita is equal to average income, regardless of PPP or nominal. Unfortunately, there is no good article on Wikipedia for the latter. Tomeasy T C 19:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is it hard to believe? Both Greece and Spain are highly developed countries with a very high HDI and quality of life index. The Economist quality of life index (see developed country) actually places both Greece and Spain AHEAD of Germany. Hope this helps.77.83.136.22 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Spain currently have unemployment 18.5%,which is at least 2 times greater than that of Germany,Greece has terrible budget crisis and Southern half of Italy almost do not produce anything.Those countries always been on donations in EU.If they have basically the same income per capita as Germany what is reason to receive donations?What is produced by Southern Europian countries?In documentary movies they seem to look much less developed then Nothern Europian. added by Juggernaut

Unemployment and deficits have nothing to do with current standard of living (they may have to do with trends though, i.e., rate of development). Iceland (the worst hit country that went to the IMF) is richer than Germany, Spain or Greece, and so (actually much richer) is Ireland (let alone the state of California !). Now about the E.U. "donations", I'll agree on that, but there were established when there were larger differences in incomes. The E.U funds, nonetheless, are supposed to have mutual benefits - at least in the long run. Both Spain and Greece have been very good "customers" to donor countries' exports (in the case of the latter, including billions of Euros of military orders). Again, though, I'll agree that any "donation" would make no sense whatsoever nowadays.... Skartsis (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Average?

The graph shows Above and Below Average, but does not show average, maybe this will help. 195.124.114.41 (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the average is a discrete value, there is probably not a single country to which this would apply. We would need to define a range for "average", but the bounds of this range would most likely be disputed among authors. I am not against implementing this. Tomeasy T C 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
"Average" is World GDP per capita, currently $10,500 according to the CIA World Factbook data, which is the source the map was based on. Pristino (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Pristino, the problem here is the proposal to add one more color to the scheme to identify those countries whose GDP per capita is average. This additional would make sense only, if we gave it a certain range around the discrete value you mentioned. The boundaries of this range would be arbitrary. Do we want this? Tomeasy T C 06:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't really like the idea. There are currently no countries that match the world average. If we were to give the "average" category a +/- $1000 range it would include about 13 countries, four of them being big enough to be noticed in the map (Brazil, South Africa, Romania and Turkey). Having these countries with a different color would only confuse users. Pristino (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada GDP is off.

GDP Per capita is registering $87,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.75.39 (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

New data have been issued today

Here.

Eliko (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Countries not in the lists

Should it be noted in the article that the IMF and World Bank lists do not include several countries (presumably because they don't have reliable data or they don't track the particular country)?

  • Not in the IMF list (12): Andorra, Cuba, Korea (North), Liechtenstein, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, San Marino, Somalia, Tuvalu
  • Not in World Bank list (32): Afghanistan, Andorra, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Brunei, Burma, Cuba, Cyprus, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Korea (North), Kosovo, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Qatar, Republic of China (Taiwan), San Marino, Somalia, Suriname, Switzerland, Tuvalu, Zimbabwe

65.4.91.169 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the EU

Is there no IMF data for the European Union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.252.202 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the GDP article on Wiki, only the EU is listed probably because it that artificial construct's GDP now just slightly higher than that of the U.S. - suspect if you were to see it on a per capita basis it would be lower than that of the U.S., so what's the point? You can't bash the U.S. in that case - You can't say, "those #&@$& Americans." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Brazil(map color) is above the GDP

Brazil's GDP is $11,289 which is above the $10,500 world GDP (PPP) per capita, but its color on the map is orange. Ademsemir (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

CIA Sort Order

The CIA table sorts Zimbabwe, at 400, last. The two nations above it are listed at 300, both below Zimbabwe. Consistency is not always the hobgoblin of small minds. MartinRinehart (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Now fixed. This small mind also wonders why the CIA's list covers 229 countries, but our CIA table currently only has 194 entries. --Avenue (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bosnia & Herzogovina - really?!

If you go to the country's Wikipedia page GDP per capita in PPP is $8,063 so something is seriously out somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.162.109 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed It was vandalism. Pristino (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Syria World Bank ranking

The numbers don't add up for its 103rd rank on the list. If the GDP figures are correct, Syria should follow 108th Fiji. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.1.60 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Rankings

The rankings on these tables do not properly deal with those counted as 'equal'. For example, if there are two countries who are ranked as equal third, by definition there is no fourth rank, and the next country should be ranked fifth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.232.28 (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why preferred over median income?

Hello:

This article seems to be preferred over other articles on median income by country, and those have been neglected, with very old (2004, 2007) numbers.

For economic study purposes, I understand. However, for an individual trying to understand people they meet in another country, wouldn't current median income numbers be more useful? Haven't we seen a great deal of news articles and research pointing out the importance of wealth distribution, i.e. that median income is much more important than average income?

Thanks,

MiszaBot I (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.3.9.210 (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

dudes change it how it was before

some dude vandalized this, i tried to fix it by choosing a different version but doesnt help--MiszaBot I (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quwazz22 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

New IMF data are on the air.

here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.7.7 (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Collapsible tables

I've made the tables collapsible, to make it feasible to add more tables without making the article appear too crowded due to too many tables appearing at once. I've also added the Penn World Tables, which is a highly esteemed estimation of GDP PPP. Pristino (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Rank-order column (1,2,3) could be static and separate

See Help:Sorting#Initial alphabetical sort versus initial sort by rank order. See the section about adding a separate, static rank column (1,2,3) next to a table. This makes the table easier to maintain and update. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

One more important sourse of alternative information

Please add also a column with statistic from here www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase/

These reseachers use a methodology of Angus Madisson and continue his line of historical statistic.

THe most important part of this file - "gdp per capita in G-K dollars". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.51.193.223 (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of CIA and UPenn lists

User:Ujongbakuto has been removing the lists from the CIA World Factbook and from the U. of Pennsylvania. Both of these lists are widely used and cited and both include countries not available in either World Bank or IMF lists. They should not be deleted. Pristino (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No replies in 3 days. I will revert your changes. Pristino (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita/Archive_1&oldid=1154020065"