Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe? It should be the 3rd poorest not Eritrea. --Ty Rezac (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment and Edit Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have seen several country articles, where in their respective infoboxes there is a ranking as regards GDP (PPP or Nominal) in which every country article has chosen the highest possible, per sources, making it impossible to compare between countries. I mean while one country article carries the World Bank data in its article infobox another has the IMF figures. Thus the ranking in parenthesis do not seem objective and possibly (I give as an example without names) there could be two or three countries sharing the same place, say 55th, in ranking but indeed one of them is 55th in the WB list, the other in the IMF list and maybe a third in the CIA data. We should choose only one of these ranking lists, in country articles, and make the ranking comparable. As the cited sources in the articles at the end refer to these same organisations, there is no justification in using one organisation for a country and the other for another. Maybe this should go to a forum of discussion rather than just stay here. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: List all -- WB, IMF and CIA -- rather than choose between, ... or would that be too messy for the infoboxes? (comment in response to RFC bot) --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I will develop it, with your kind permission: In all the country articles let us just take the corresponding WB and IMF data, from the corresponding WP list article(s), in this or reverse order and let us put the country ranking in parentehes. This way we need add no "source ref", so economize one ref paranthesis. (I believe CIA data in economic facts are not as relevant as WB and IMF data, as they do not have direct access to any raw data material.) This way we will be able to see more or less a consistent ranking in all country articles. --E4024 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't agree with proposal to "choose only one of these ranking lists, in country articles, and make the ranking comparable.". Wikipedia should not judge what sources are better than the other and to evaluate anything based on one source. Editors of each article should agree what source to use, like with other issues. (comment in response to RFC bot) --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur with antidiskriminator. We can't pick out one source above the others. I don't thin tcomparison is what people use infobox stats for, they'd use this article instead. Accordingly I think the problems with the current system - sources don't vary altogether much as long as your use isn't direct comparison - are less significant than the road of chosing one source for everything. We'd never agree on one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BoogaLouie, don't choose one but list all. United States Man (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Somalia is not poor at all?

According to the lists Somalia apperars to be richer in terms af GDP per capita than countries like the Ukraine, South Africa and Brazil. Is that for real? At least it is very suprising to me given chaos, civil war and famine widely described in western media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finn Olsen (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Alahi Industries?

Can someone please remove that from the tables? I would but I'm no good at editing tables.Bobawitz (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CON

2010 data is removed. If anyone wants to introduce it, build consensus.--VanDerHaart (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree I agree with the removal of the outdated Penn World Table list. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 Disagree We went through this before. UPenn data is useful and widely cited, and it includes countries not included elsewhere. Plus it's been here a long time. It is you that should build the necessary consensus to remove it. Pristino (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

2003-2009 data

2003 data of some Caribbean islands is misleading. Build consensus, until then, removed.--VanDerHaart (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It is the latest data available. As I said before, you should be the one building a consensus to have it removed, not the other way. Pristino (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge lists

I suggest merging these lists into one, with different (sortable) columns for estimates from different sources. It would make the whole thing simpler and more readable. --99of9 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, even better would be to remove the Penn World Table list (which is outdated by at least 2 years; even the official external website's latest figures are from 2010), the CIA World Factbook list (which consists of highly outdated figures for many "economies which are not considered to be countries"), the World Bank list (which also consists of several outdated figures and 5 less countries than those on the IMF list), and just stick to the IMF list, which is more up-to-date and with only 1 outdated figure (for Syria because of the civil war that began there in early 2011), and therefore more/most reliable, even if not perfect. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason the IMF has 2011 figures for almost all countries is because they use projected data in some cases; that is, "good guesses" about a country's economy. The World Bank does not use projections on its WDI database, which is why there are some countries with outdated data. Both lists should be included. Pristino (talk)

Oh, I see. Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

About using 2012 data

Currently no major institution has published GDP for 2012 based on hard data (that is, national accounts data by the respective countries). The CIA data for 2012 are a copy of the IMF's 2012 projections from October of last year; projections, not national accounts data based on the actual measured performance of the economies.

The World Bank and the IMF will publish data for 2012 in April, so let's just wait for that instead of adding lists containing projected 2012 data. Pristino (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait for the World Bank and IMF data. But now that you mention that the CIA data is mostly based on IMF data, why should CIA data be included at all? Just because it has some severely outdated data of some "economies which are not considered to be countries"? - Ujongbakuto (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The CIA has data on North Korea and Cuba, for example, as well as on some non-sovereign territories. I believe it is still useful to have that information. Pristino (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, okay; fair enough. Obviously, my main concern was/is that 4 different lists of data were/are/might be causing too much clutter... - Ujongbakuto (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The idea to merge the tables into one was defeated long ago. See Talk archives. Pristino (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the idea I had in my mind. My idea is for this article to have one list with only one figure per country, based mainly on IMF data, with data for certain countries or "economies which are not considered to be countries" to be supplied by the CIA World Factbook (if that's really useful/necessary), something like List of countries by foreign-exchange reserves. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ujong, can you make an example here. I don't get your idea.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hakan,

Do you know if the World Bank 2012 figures have been released yet? I don't think they have. I recommend that we remove the World Bank figures for 2011 until we have those of 2012. It may be confusing for some to compare the outdated figures for the newer IMF (and CIA) one's to those of the World Bank.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim3343 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Countries by 2011 GDP (PPP) per capita Map

I suggest changing this to reflect the 2012 IMF nubmers, as they are the most recent, and list more countries (187) than the World Bank figures (181)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.41.15.209 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I just changed it to reflect the recent figures. I'm still an amateur at this stuff, so I'm pretty sure I made some mistakes. Also, the map does not reflect the recent partition of Sudan into two countries (I just noticed this). Is there any way to easily edit this?

Also, the key isn't very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim3343 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, there is also a problem with Bhutan's figures. The country is color-coded grey. Kosovo's figures weren't input correctly. Lastly, and most importantly, the map key/color-coding sucks. - Karim3343 (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Iran - Turkey map colours

As numbers are indicating, Turkey ought to have been painted a darker colour than Iran.85.102.162.226 (talk · contribs)

In addition, Guyana should be painted in a lighter shade of blue. 189.19.80.253 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

GDP (PPP) per capita, 2012 IMF

GDP (PPP) per capita data for 2012; released by IMF in April 2013NOTE: CIA data is used for countries that the IMF has no data for

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim3343 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Converted to .png Karim3343 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest re-painting the 2012 IMF map using the same colo(u)r code as in the 2011 World Bank map, which is much easier for the readers to follow.189.19.80.253 (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Univ of Penns

I don't know if there is *still* anyone who wants to keep the 2010 numbers from the University of Penns., but the table might be a candidate of "misleading" data because it's largely outdated. I invite all editors to engage in a civil discussion to investigate what kind of consensus compromise to be found as written in the wikipedia rules, until then, I just put the template , think it's ok.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

-yeah it should be removed its very outdated--Quandapanda (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Quandapanda, Agreed. So I have moved that table to GDP (PPP) capita in history article. Since the consensus is to delete outdated tables (we delete 2010 data of IMF, CIA,.. automatically) Univ of Penns. is not immune of it, and it doesnt meet wiki standards and it is misleading. Plus, I have moved the table to GDP (PPP) capita in history article , so it still exists. You can find the table here in the past GDP (PPP) capita article, hope all is well now. Have a nice summer everyone.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe it is important to keep the Penn Tables data for three reasons: 1) It uses a more accurate method to estimate PPP prices than either the World Bank or the IMF, according to the IMF itself. 2) It includes countries rarely available in any of the other tables, such as Cuba. 3) Data for 2010 is not as old as some of the data in the CIA table, and the database will be updated in the future. Pristino (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Pristino, I don't really mind the restore of the Penn data table but why did you revert the updates to the CIA data table? BlackHades (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The CIA has finally put out their own GDP get capita figures (not borrowed from the IMF), so I will update the table. Pristino (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Pristino, 1) CIA Factbook covers Cuba 2012 table too. 2) Univ of Penns. does not have an update and is removed to historical GDP's of countries. 3) 99% of Univ of Penns. table is old, you can find it in historical GDP's of countries too. Please stop this revert game otherwise you will be reported to admin board. --Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Åland Islands

Why Åland islands isn't on the list? That's Finlands overseas territory, such as the Falkland Islands are in the United Kingdom. And Falkland Islands are on the list.(85.76.8.4 (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC))

New data have just been published by IMF

New data.

HOOTmag (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

2013 IMF figures for East Timor

20k, seriously? No way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.85.15 (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In the source table no data on East Timor http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2013&ey=2013&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=16&pr1.y=7&c=512%2C668%2C914%2C672%2C612%2C946%2C614%2C137%2C311%2C962%2C213%2C674%2C911%2C676%2C193%2C548%2C122%2C556%2C912%2C678%2C313%2C181%2C419%2C867%2C513%2C682%2C316%2C684%2C913%2C273%2C124%2C868%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C565%2C228%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636%2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C453%2C960%2C968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C714%2C128%2C862%2C611%2C135%2C321%2C716%2C243%2C456%2C248%2C722%2C469%2C942%2C253%2C718%2C642%2C724%2C643%2C576%2C939%2C936%2C644%2C961%2C819%2C813%2C172%2C199%2C132%2C733%2C646%2C184%2C648%2C524%2C915%2C361%2C134%2C362%2C652%2C364%2C174%2C732%2C328%2C366%2C258%2C734%2C656%2C144%2C654%2C146%2C336%2C463%2C263%2C528%2C268%2C923%2C532%2C738%2C944%2C578%2C176%2C537%2C534%2C742%2C536%2C866%2C429%2C369%2C433%2C744%2C178%2C186%2C436%2C925%2C136%2C869%2C343%2C746%2C158%2C926%2C439%2C466%2C916%2C112%2C664%2C111%2C826%2C298%2C542%2C927%2C967%2C846%2C443%2C299%2C917%2C582%2C544%2C474%2C941%2C754%2C446%2C698%2C666&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.49.185.137 (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

i checked it and you're right. there must be a mistake, though. how can a poor-income country suddenly jump into high-income rank in less than a year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.92.211.38 (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia

the wrong map of russia

where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.208.77 (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I found it! It's over there in Southern Ukraine, where it belongs. --173.79.76.211 (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

isn't a country. --173.79.76.211 (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Monaco and Liechtenstein are not included to one of the lists

There are three plates of countries, but Monaco and Liechtenstein are not included in the plates of the IMF and the World bank, meanwhile the both countries are taking the first places in it. It should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollanotherblunt (talk • contribs) 12:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong information about East Timor

In the IMF's list it has 21,705 (48th place) but really it has about 2,000 (in the other lists and in the infobox of the East Timor article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.217.193 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Argentina missing?

Why is Argentina missing from the World Bank list? 14:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Saudi Arabian GDP (PPP) figure difference

Both the IMF and the World Bank list Saudi Arabia as having a figure above $50,000, while the CIA World Factbook has it at $32,000. Why the big discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redflorist (talk • contribs) 01:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The world bank data is outdated

In fact the most recen data used by World bank [1] were replaced with old outdated version. This page needs urgent update.Tritomex (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That link doesn't work with me. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

CIA Timor-Leste / East-Timor GDP PPP is possible wrong

Please check, it's definitely a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.116.209 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sao Paulo isn't a country

Sao Paulo is a state of Brazil, and in fact it's rich only because the business headquartered in Sao Paulo makes these riches in other states of Brazil. If Sao Paulo approaches independence, its shitty industry will lose her market (because others states of Brazil buy Sao Paulo-made things only because the importation tax is very high, otherwise even Chinese products are far better than), and its economy will drop so hardly that Sao Paulo will become the poorest country in South America.

So, remove Sao Paulo from this country list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.138.11.243 (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

World Bank recent data include 2014

Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The World Bank's July 2015 update (http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-PPP-based-table) for 2014 (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2014+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc) doesn't seem to be complete, as evidenced by missing 2014 figures for many other countries (including even certain developed countries, such as New Zealand and Switzerland), so it might be better to wait two more months for its September update. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

World Bank table improperly formatted

The table containing data aquired from the World Bank, does not list numbers properly. It sorts first by the leading number, and goes on to sort numbers by length. This results in a scrambling of the ordering when sorting. It would be great if someone knowledgeable could fix this.

193.11.138.15 (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent IMF list edits

Twobells - I cannot find the data you're referring to. I generated a new table from the IMF for GDP (PPP) per capital in international dollars (link). I do not see the numbers you're referring to. The 2014 numbers are still the same. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello EvergreenFir pleased to meet you, (nice nick btw). I found that those figures are way out, check the IMF data here please: link. In 2014 the figure was $43,430 which is what the table reflects right? Your link refers to 2011-2014 not 2014 regards. Twobells (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ujongbakuto|(talk), I undid your goodfaith revert as the GNI is calculated according to GDP PPI, here is a descriptor link (please remember that the tables on that page refer to the period 2011-2014 NOT 2014 which is what the article refers to. In the case of the UK it was $43,430 for 2014, please see this link, thanks.Twobells (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Italics and dash for Monaco and Liechtenstein

Cgx8253 can you please explain your reasoning behind your recent edits like this one? As I mentioned in my revert, micronations like Monaco are principalities and would fall under "non-sovereign entities, former countries or other special groupings" mentioned in the methodology section of the article. Am I incorrect in that assessment? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

per capita ppp 6,664 estimated. 112.133.233.109 (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  10:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

New World Economic Outlook (april 2016) is out!

Somebody should change imf data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.135.168.15 (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability of the CIA estimates

Concerning the CIA estimates, I do have some doubt about their notability:

• Most of the figures do not seem to be really CIA estimates, as the times of Cold War, when the CIA estimated the economic power of the COMECON nations, are over (except for countries like Cuba or North Korea). Most of the data seem to be from the national statistical offices, the UN, IMF, World Bank.
• The data for smaller territories is often outdated; they should not be compared to the other lists that refer to one single year.

And I also found some strange PPP estimates (e. g. Australia: PPP according to World Bank is about 1,4, according to CIA about 0.8) ...--Antemister (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

growth rate

can anyone add this page to see also list [2] Lionessc (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Everyone in Kosovo is a hunter-gatherer or sustinence farmer, apparently.

According to this page, the CIA estimates that Kosovo's GDP (PPP) per capita is... 0. That can't be right. - 2602:306:3958:D160:455:1B93:F67E:25FF (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

World Bank data 2015

Why does the World Bank data for 2015 end on Estonia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.135.168.15 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Malta GDP in the 3rd column is wrong

In the source it's written: "51 MALTA $35,900 2015 EST." https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

while in the wikipedia: "45 Malta 27,800 2015 est." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darck.pl (talk • contribs) 09:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

new data for imf 2015 list

World Economic Outlook (October 2016) is now available — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.241.214.46 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes

World Bank and CIA lists are full of mistakes. Can somebody fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.241.214.46 (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this comment since I am not sure about editing the complex table...but Argentina is missing from the middle column (World Bank) but if you go to the link, it is listed 20,323.0 for Argentina (the link being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#cite_note-5 or:"GDP per capita, PPP (current international $)", World Development Indicators database, World Bank. Database updated on 11 April 2016. Accessed on 14 April 2016.Can you update by adding Argentina and this figure from that link? Thanks Harelx (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

IMF 2015 list

The October 2016 World Economic Outlook contains estimates for 2016. I entered these. Someone then reverted them. I see no reason to believe that these are any less accurate than the 2015 estimates. As Column AZ of their Excel spreadsheet states, starting from 2015 (or often earlier), the figures are all estimates anyway.

But if you have any citation to back up your claim that the 2015 estimates are somehow more accurate, please go ahead and cite it, before removing the data I entered. Thanks. Jfanderson68 (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

As I've explained over two years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teja_srinivas&oldid=640581789#Shaded_cells_indicate_IMF_staff_estimates) to someone else (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita&diff=640580739&oldid=640578886), only the "Shaded cells indicate IMF staff estimates" (which is clearly stated at the top right-hand corner of that specific IMF webpage); the 2016 list consists only of shaded cells, whereas the 2015 list has many cells that are not shaded and, therefore, not estimates, but actual data. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

So by your reasoning (i.e. original research in which you decide which data are or are not good enough to be published on Wikipedia), we should omit most of the estimates (or use the older ones). But this is not what's being done on your preferred list.

For example, for Afghanistan, "estimates start after 2013". So we should either omit Afghanistan altogether OR use the 2013 figure (which is $1,933.206). But instead your preferred list shows Afghanistan's 2015 estimate ($1,937).

And for Albania, "estimates start after 2010". So we should either omit Albania altogether OR use the 2010 figure ($9,385.744). But instead your preferred list shows Afghanistan's 2015 estimate ($11,304).

There are in total, according to the IMF 2016 WEO, only 67 countries for which there are 2015 "actual data". So by your reasoning, Wikipedia's list should only contain these 67 countries. If that is what you want, then please go ahead and update the list accordingly.

My reasoning is that we simply honestly and faithfully produce the latest estimates from the IMF. Even "actual data" are all estimates anyway that are scarcely infallible (as the IMF states, "Note that even if the data are marked as “actual”, these data can still be revised in the future.") Jfanderson68 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• The IMF last published its GDP numbers in October 2016, before 2016 was over. So the 2016 stats are speculative by nature and should not be used. This is the consensus from a number of discussions we've had on various GDP lists. We should wait till the April 2017 updates before entering the 2016 numbers. -Zanhe (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Lol hilarious. Logging in using a different user name to revert, just so you won't be flagged as being in YET another edit war?

If the IMF — an international organization founded in 1945 — believes that its statistics are worthy of being published in an OFFICIAL PUBLICATION, who are you to conduct YOUR own original research, decide which statistics are speculative and which are not, and thereby decide what is or isn't worthy of appearing on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfanderson68 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jfanderson68:, it's common sense that actual GDP data cannot be known before the year is over, and even IMF couldn't have known the 2016 full-year GDP in October 2016. IMF has already published GDP estimates for 2021, so why stop at 2016 if we follow your logic? And accusing me of being a sockpuppet of Ujongbakuto is simply ludicrous. I've been on Wikipedia for 7 years with 60,000+ edits; just take a look at my edit history and compare it with Ujongbakuto's. Making false accusations (combined with edit warring) is a sure way to get yourself blocked. Please stop. -Zanhe (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Because the year 2016 has just ended.

I have given perfectly good arguments as to why your preferred 2015 data are also wrong, by YOUR very own argument. By YOUR very own argument, only 67 countries should be included.

You have given no rebuttal except than to appeal to authority and tradition of a few Wikipedia editors who spend all their time here.

Go ahead and threaten me, ban me, see if I give a F. You simply lose another new Wikipedia contributor. This is why Wikipedia has stagnated and attracts no new users. Jfanderson68 (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 has just ended, but the latest IMF estimates were published before it did, and that's why the 2016 data aren't reliable enough. The 2015 dataset contains estimates too, but at least they're plausible estimates published after the year had ended, not obvious speculation. BTW, I sincerely hope you'll stay and become a long-term contributor, but to do so you'll need to learn how to handle disagreements and refrain from edit warring and personal attacks. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

<Man, you're simply wrong or have no idea how the GDP is calculated. Have you heard anything about final estimates, preliminary versions, corrections (for eample, at the USA GDP statistics)? The data is always reviewed multiple times and it takes 2 years or more to get the final digits. They change the methodology (and I really MEAN it), they recalculate data backwards and they are making multiple changes, so you either wait 4 to 10 years to get the final estimation (and it still can be reviewed later) OR use actual data, even if it is an estimate.Like use projections for the year we are living at. In case of China, for example, if you use PPP data, the difference between 2017 and 2015 is... let me assume.. over 4trillion dollars. That is ... how many UKs? 3? And to grasp the real situation you better use the most recent data in that case 119.33.136.192 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

So, why do I see 2017 here at 01.03.2017? It has no sense. These data belongs to unpredictable future. All these projections made with assumptions like no-change policy. They didn't take into consideration new economic crisis, political changes through elections, referendums and coups, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, etc. There are a lot of unknown things about future. How do we know now that GDP PPP of Colombia will exceed GDP PPP of Venezuela? Do you know what will be in Venezuela even tomorrow? May be it will collapse totally. Nobody know.31.42.47.76 (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

And after all. IMF released World economic outlook update at January 2017 and changed projections for number of countries. These October 2016 projection isn't up-to-date according to IMF!31.42.47.76 (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The US GDP data = THAT'S what unpredictable! We have some sort of a noise 'bout changing trading balance stuff just because someone thinks it is not correct. So, do I need to explain you what does it mean for the GDP data? The estimates are always estimates, but, if you do not expect a war o something, they re just as correct as the previous data. But more precise, as we live in present time heading to the future, not to the past. But anyway, I agree, as soon as any better estimates are available (either more precise or more resent), the data here shall be updated.119.33.136.192 (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

April estimates for previous year are better than that projections for future. They are more or less based on some statistics and accounting, not simple trend prolongation. Economic growth is extremly volatile. It's not like demographics.31.42.47.76 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You wrote about final estimates, preliminary versions, corrections, etc. Actually these 2017 data is none of that. It is forecast. In comparisson Eurocomission has two bodies: ECFIN and EUROSTAT. ECFIN makes projections-forecasts for future but EUROSTAT makes these final estimates, preliminary versions, corrections, etc. It's different work. I think we must use more reliable data like estimates, corrections, etc., but not forecasts for this Wikipedia list.31.42.47.76 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Update the map

IMF data exist for 2017, but the map is only for 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.210.183 (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Update the list April 2017 IMF new data

IMF data exist for 2017, but the list is only for 2015

New IMF link 2017 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2017&ey=2017&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=16&pr1.y=7&c=512%2C668%2C914%2C672%2C612%2C946%2C614%2C137%2C311%2C962%2C213%2C674%2C911%2C676%2C193%2C548%2C122%2C556%2C912%2C678%2C313%2C181%2C419%2C867%2C513%2C682%2C316%2C684%2C913%2C273%2C124%2C868%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C565%2C228%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636%2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C453%2C960%2C968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C714%2C128%2C862%2C611%2C135%2C321%2C716%2C243%2C456%2C248%2C722%2C469%2C942%2C253%2C718%2C642%2C724%2C643%2C576%2C939%2C936%2C644%2C961%2C819%2C813%2C172%2C199%2C132%2C733%2C646%2C184%2C648%2C524%2C915%2C361%2C134%2C362%2C652%2C364%2C174%2C732%2C328%2C366%2C258%2C734%2C656%2C144%2C654%2C146%2C336%2C463%2C263%2C528%2C268%2C923%2C532%2C738%2C944%2C578%2C176%2C537%2C534%2C742%2C536%2C866%2C429%2C369%2C433%2C744%2C178%2C186%2C436%2C925%2C136%2C869%2C343%2C746%2C158%2C926%2C439%2C466%2C916%2C112%2C664%2C111%2C826%2C298%2C542%2C927%2C967%2C846%2C443%2C299%2C917%2C582%2C544%2C474%2C941%2C754%2C446%2C698%2C666&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunny2090 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Date ranges in table headers

The date range given in the CIA table makes no sense. "Central Intelligence Agency (1993–2016)" What are the dates in the parentheses supposed to mean? There is not one single row from 1993 in the list. Taxodermist (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

False Data in Article

Current IMF 2016 data is inappropriate in the Article. It's ugly mix of 2015 and 2016 data. F.e. Russia is 2016 but Venezuela is 2015, Turkey is 2016 but Greece is 2015 and so on. Please fix it somehow. IMF database was updated recently.31.42.47.76 (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for Venezuela and Greece, but there are a lot of countries still left in 2015. China, India etc. Sorry, I cant fix it myself due to lack of access. Full IMF 2016 list here:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2016&ey=2016&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=16&pr1.y=7&c=512%2C668%2C914%2C672%2C612%2C946%2C614%2C137%2C311%2C962%2C213%2C674%2C911%2C676%2C193%2C548%2C122%2C556%2C912%2C678%2C313%2C181%2C419%2C867%2C513%2C682%2C316%2C684%2C913%2C273%2C124%2C868%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C565%2C228%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636%2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C453%2C960%2C968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C714%2C128%2C862%2C611%2C135%2C321%2C716%2C243%2C456%2C248%2C722%2C469%2C942%2C253%2C718%2C642%2C724%2C643%2C576%2C939%2C936%2C644%2C961%2C819%2C813%2C172%2C199%2C132%2C733%2C646%2C184%2C648%2C524%2C915%2C361%2C134%2C362%2C652%2C364%2C174%2C732%2C328%2C366%2C258%2C734%2C656%2C144%2C654%2C146%2C336%2C463%2C263%2C528%2C268%2C923%2C532%2C738%2C944%2C578%2C176%2C537%2C534%2C742%2C536%2C866%2C429%2C369%2C433%2C744%2C178%2C186%2C436%2C925%2C136%2C869%2C343%2C746%2C158%2C926%2C439%2C466%2C916%2C112%2C664%2C111%2C826%2C298%2C542%2C927%2C967%2C846%2C443%2C299%2C917%2C582%2C544%2C474%2C941%2C754%2C446%2C698%2C666&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a= 31.42.47.76 (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Average and median GDP per capita of the world?

What is the average and median GDP per capita of all of the countries in the world? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2017

Austria and Netherlands are listed two times on the World Bank list. GDP (PPP) per capita in 2016 for Austria according to World Bank is 50,077.8, so it should be 50 078 on the list. 31.179.143.202 (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: It appears someone already updated Austria's GDP, plus I also found two more countries listed twice that i removed: Australia and Iceland. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Singapore is not sovereign?

Why does the article indicate that Singapore is "not considered to be [a sovereign state]" in the tables corresponding to the IMF and CIA sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.212.0.61 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Oct 2017 IMF update

Уточненная статистика МВФ за 2016 год от 10 октября 2017г. Россия- 26925.Греция-26829. Петр Иванов 10.10.2017

Google translate: "The updated statistics of the IMF for 2016 from October 10, 2017. Russia-26925. Greece-26829. Peter Ivanov." Please provide a source link for this before editing. These numbers need to be consistent and correctly referenced. Weburbia (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

-Тут:http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28 Петр Иванов. 11.10.2017.

Thanks, I generated a table from that link which shows numbers for all the countries updated, not just Greece and Russia. I think that for consistency, either all numbers should be updated or none of them. Weburbia (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

-Польша привела свою таблицу в соответствие с данными МВФ от 10.10.2017. Пользуйтесь кому надо.Эти ленивые офисные коты из английской Википедии давно не ловят мышей. Петр Иванов 14.10.2017.

New IMF Data (October 2017) and others

New IMF Data 15 October 2017, Update all figuers please! http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=43&pr.y=5&sy=2016&ey=2016&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C672%2C914%2C946%2C612%2C137%2C614%2C546%2C311%2C962%2C213%2C674%2C911%2C676%2C193%2C548%2C122%2C556%2C912%2C678%2C313%2C181%2C419%2C867%2C513%2C682%2C316%2C684%2C913%2C273%2C124%2C868%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C836%2C918%2C558%2C748%2C138%2C618%2C196%2C624%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C626%2C449%2C628%2C564%2C228%2C565%2C924%2C283%2C233%2C853%2C632%2C288%2C636%2C293%2C634%2C566%2C238%2C964%2C662%2C182%2C960%2C359%2C423%2C453%2C935%2C968%2C128%2C922%2C611%2C714%2C321%2C862%2C243%2C135%2C248%2C716%2C469%2C456%2C253%2C722%2C642%2C942%2C643%2C718%2C939%2C724%2C644%2C576%2C819%2C936%2C172%2C961%2C132%2C813%2C646%2C199%2C648%2C733%2C915%2C184%2C134%2C524%2C652%2C361%2C174%2C362%2C328%2C364%2C258%2C732%2C656%2C366%2C654%2C734%2C336%2C144%2C263%2C146%2C268%2C463%2C532%2C528%2C944%2C923%2C176%2C738%2C534%2C578%2C536%2C537%2C429%2C742%2C433%2C866%2C178%2C369%2C436%2C744%2C136%2C186%2C343%2C925%2C158%2C869%2C439%2C746%2C916%2C926%2C664%2C466%2C826%2C112%2C542%2C111%2C967%2C298%2C443%2C927%2C917%2C846%2C544%2C299%2C941%2C582%2C446%2C474%2C666%2C754%2C668%2C698&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=

I would do, but the article is semi protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.190.78 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

CIA rank table wrong! Russia 26,500 Italy 36,800 Turkey 24,900 France 42,300 Japan 41,300 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html 89.22.175.43 (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of North American countries by GDP per capita which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

New IMF figures for 2018

The IMF have updated their GDP figures for 2018.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2018/01/weodata/index.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.227.57 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

IMF april 2018 figures

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2018/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=56&pr.y=2&sy=2017&ey=2017&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C946%2C914%2C137%2C612%2C546%2C614%2C962%2C311%2C674%2C213%2C676%2C911%2C548%2C193%2C556%2C122%2C678%2C912%2C181%2C313%2C867%2C419%2C682%2C513%2C684%2C316%2C273%2C913%2C868%2C124%2C921%2C339%2C948%2C638%2C943%2C514%2C686%2C218%2C688%2C963%2C518%2C616%2C728%2C223%2C836%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C624%2C692%2C522%2C694%2C622%2C142%2C156%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C565%2C228%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636%2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C359%2C960%2C453%2C423%2C968%2C935%2C922%2C128%2C714%2C611%2C862%2C321%2C135%2C243%2C716%2C248%2C456%2C469%2C722%2C253%2C942%2C642%2C718%2C643%2C724%2C939%2C576%2C644%2C936%2C819%2C961%2C172%2C813%2C132%2C726%2C646%2C199%2C648%2C733%2C915%2C184%2C134%2C524%2C652%2C361%2C174%2C362%2C328%2C364%2C258%2C732%2C656%2C366%2C654%2C734%2C336%2C144%2C263%2C146%2C268%2C463%2C532%2C528%2C944%2C923%2C176%2C738%2C534%2C578%2C536%2C537%2C429%2C742%2C433%2C866%2C178%2C369%2C436%2C744%2C136%2C186%2C343%2C925%2C158%2C869%2C439%2C746%2C916%2C926%2C664%2C466%2C826%2C112%2C542%2C111%2C967%2C298%2C443%2C927%2C917%2C846%2C544%2C299%2C941%2C582%2C446%2C474%2C666%2C754%2C668%2C698%2C672&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=

Why keep the article protected if that means you protect outdated, incorrect data... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.14.94.217 (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

How are "world" statistics calculated?

How are the GDP per capita statistics for the World calculated? Is it the sum of GDP per capita of all countries divided by world population? Thanks. —JackintheBox • ^TALK 07:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Ireland

Does Ireland appear so high because of the Double Irish bookkeeping? Companies are domiciled there for tax purposes even though the value added research and manufacturing is done elsewhere? --RAN (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all tax havens rank highly on these tables. Added a section explaining it as it is getting quite extreme now Britishfinance (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2019

All ranks should be re-instated for the CIA list. The CIA original source includes ranks for Macau, Hong Kong, Taiwan etc. The data in Wikipedia should stay true the source. Arbitrary definitions of sovereignty is controversial, especially in the case of Taiwan, and has little to do with this topic of this page. CohnWellensHolmes (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

In every article that lists countries in a particular order, the ranking numbers are reserved for generally recognized sovereign states. If one were to say that that, say, Namibia is ranked X among countries when it comes to per capita GDP, it has to be a ranking of entities that undisputedly are *countries*, not dependent territories or partially recognized states. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: They're not countries, so are not appropriate for a list of countries. NiciVampireHeart 20:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan is for all intents and purposes a country (unless you are working for or an agent of the communist Chinese government). Re-instating a rank for Taiwan is again requested. If you would prefer, use Republic of China (Taiwan). The Republic of China (Taiwan) is certainly a sovereign country by all definitions. By 22 U.S. Code § 3303 (Application to Taiwan of laws and international agreements), Taiwan is effectively treated as a country by the U.S. Government.

You are correct that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is de facto recognized by a majority of UN members, and that such recognition likely would be de jure were it not for the fact that the People's Republic of China has a policy that withholds diplomatic (and commercial, if I'm not mistaken) relations from countries that officially recognize the Republic of China. Of course, the Taiwanese government is partly to blame for this, since it officially claims to be the government of "all of China" (including mainland China) and thus de jure recognition of the Republic of China implies non-recognition of the People's Republic of China. That's as may be, but the fact remains that Taiwan, while a de facto state with substantial international recognition, is not a generally recognized sovereign state. Given the controversies concerning Taiwan's international status, it would violate NPOV to group Taiwan with generally recognized sovereign states, just as it would violate NPOV to deem Taiwan to be a province of the People's Republic of China. The numbered ranking in these articles is reserved for generally recognized sovereign states, which is why Taiwan's spot on the list is not numbered. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Clearly there is none. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2019

Taiwan is a country so please mark a number on it Pacalin1012 (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see above section. NiciVampireHeart 17:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested again, see above section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CohnWellensHolmes (talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Plans to update world bank list?

Updated world bank data is available, such as at this page: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD I believe the update has been available for a couple months now. Any plans to incorporate the new data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.169.19 (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

SINK OFC?

Folks, "Sink OFC" is used repeated, without link or explanation or citation. Please clarify. Thank you kindly, Smilo Don (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Please update

The 2019 IMF report currently available: [3] --minhhuy ^(talk) 08:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is the 2020 IMF report available if you are looking for IMF 2020 Sajid 11:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajid Ahmed Nijhu (talk • contribs)

Why does the graphic use nearly the same colors for identification?

The colors used in the graphic to quickly identify those countries in the 35k to 50k and 20k to 35K are nearly the same. The lower scales are also very similar to each other. Why would anyone choose slightly different shades of the same color for such an important aspect of this otherwise useful graphic? Bflln (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Mistakes

Since it isn't possible for me to edit this page, I report mistakes I have found: there is no number 44 and two numbers 46 on the first list. Bjarni22 (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Norway on 1 with 1,670k GDP 148.252.112.61 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Under “List of countries and dependencies” the third list of the “Central Intelligence Agency (1993-2017)” a factual error/discrepancy is made for that particular list on Wikipedia compared to its stated source [8] concerning the assignation of one specific territory in that particular list, namely “West Bank” in the source [8] as opposed to “Palestine, State of” on Wikipedia. Both assignations may or may not refer to different entities, and therefore should be reproduced from the source with caution and accuracy. Moreover, as to maintain real impartiality on Wikipedia over contentious subjects, no such overly partial assignations as “State of” should be made when even the source attempts to be impartial, making readers wrongly assume the source of the data was actually not impartial. 195.158.248.232 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:NPOV clearly states that neutrality is based on what reliable sources say, not on what random Wikipedians think is neutral. I'll have to look up the CIA reference, but if they use "Palestine, State of" then so do we... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I have looked at the CIA reference; which does use "West Bank", but that seems to be even less neutral that 'State of Palestine" since "State of Palestine" is what the UN uses, and it would also be confusing to our readers since the term is usually at least Palestine, American foreign policy under the Trump administration notwithstanding... I have therefore kept the current version as I don't think there's consensus for a change. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Classing West Bank as a "country" (and Gaza as well if you do a search, which they then don't include in their tables) is typical for this source which reflects the US government position. They make themselves look ridiculous but unless there is consensus to do away with this particular source altogether, then we must put up with their nonsense.Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There’s disagreement on this change between editors. Please move this discussion to another section and gain a consensus before reopening this request. Edit requests are for uncontroversial changes only. Thanks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 15:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

New 2019 World Bank data

World Bank published a new 2019 data: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?most_recent_value_desc=true&view=chart 178.235.188.31 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Vietnam’s data 2020 IMF

Somebody has vandalised Vietnam’s GDP per capita. It is $10,755, ranking 106th but has been changed to around $7,700 only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.112.76 (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying us. I've restored the figures for Vietnam and several other countries to the IMF data.-gadfium 21:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 Jan 2021

Please update the link for the CIA world factbook, it should be: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/gdp-per-capita-ppp/country-comparison

It is also a good time to update the numbers, they have 2019 figures available instead of the 2017 figures shown on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.54.9 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a list

Unless I am mising it, I don't see a list? 2001:8003:2290:8100:78DE:20A1:CE5B:6628 (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

What happened to Macau?

Of course, it's insane that the GDP (PPP) per capita could drop from 129,451 to 58,931 in just one year. Does anyone know why? --2.83.246.138 (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

Some random editors always target states with limited diplomatic recognition over the list such as Taiwan, Palestine to be aligned with other dependent territories by using the same Italic font but they are totally different concepts. If the consensus have decided that the largely unrecognized states shall not be put a rank it would make sense, but it is deliberately ambiguity to put Italic font upon all non-UN members which is only tending to confuse two sort of distinct subjects into one. Please let us know what the consensus is now reached for the listing format of classification along with clarification about what entities are now eligible to be ranked? 123.195.130.73 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The "top 15" tables

These tables have a "Type" column that does not make sense.

In some cases, the Type column contains a phrase such as "Tax haven" or "Oil & Gas." (There is a large oil and gas sector in the Norwegian economy, but it is a diversified economy, so if the table is trying to say that Norway has an "oil and gas" economy, that is an oversimplification.)

In other cases, the Type column contains a number such as 52,150 or 49,175.

What a mess. 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:F9DD:5EAD:F5F3:DFF1 (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Countries not included in the numerical rankings.

The Wikipedia article notes that: “Several economies that are not considered to be sovereign states (such as various dependent territories) are included because they appear in the sources. These non-sovereign entities, former countries and other special groupings are in italics. They are listed in dollar order, but are not given a numerical rank.”

How is it determined what country is and isn’t sovereign, or if that is even relevant to the ranking? For example, the source for the World Bank numbers clearly state the data is of “Countries and Economies” and does not include information if one country is considered sovereign or not. So, shouldn’t the World Bank data include all “Countries and Economies” in the numerical ranking, as that is how the data is presented from World Bank?

The same issue happens with the Central Intelligence Agency numbers. Why isn’t Taiwan assigned a numerical ranking when this data is from the United States, and US law says Taiwan is to be treated just like any other country, nation or state. The CIA itself even applies the term “country” to Taiwan: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/taiwan/

I agree with 123.195.130.73 in his Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021 and would like further clarification on when or where this consensus was reached. Eclipsed830 (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed a problem. Unless there's a general Wikipedia guideline on this, or this is original/unsourced research and we should remove it. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Wikipedia is not a place to undermine the sovereignty of countries like Taiwan, which gives them less independence from human-rights abusers. 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:F9DD:5EAD:F5F3:DFF1 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Why less updated CIA column comes first?

CIA table update much less frequently. Why it comes as the first column? It should be either World Bank or IMF comes first column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.152.141 (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to change the order; I don't mind. Alphabetical was the default order when I merged the tables. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 04:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:e180:8861:9d3e:38b1:8d53:633f:8e62 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

PLEASE CHANGE THE SINGLE TABLE ORDERED BY AVERAGE VALUES BACK TO THREE SEPARATE TABLES FOR EACH OF THE SEPARATE DATA SOURCES. 86.138.90.63 (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Austria vs Czech republic - western or eastern countries

Dear sirs,

there is a geographic error in the table in the article. The Czech Republic is part of Central Europe, not Eastern Europe. Austria is listed as part of Western Europe, however, from Vienna to Prague it is necessary to travel 300 km to the west. Western European offensive cultural stereotypes do not belong in Wikipedia articles.

Thank you,

CEE citizen, Jakub Rejzek

I think the table has been built back in a day when many editors assumed the cold war division of Europe as the boundary. They perceived Finland, Sweden or even Greece as situated in Western Europe, for example. Same with Austria. You can go ahead and make corrections if you want. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi! The list is in the wrong order. It should be like this: Poland - 59, Guam - 60, Hungary - 61, Slovakia - 62, British Virgin Island - 63, Bahamas - 64. Greetings

Region / Subregion nonsense

All of these regional subregional groupings are flawed. Russia is in "Europe." Yikes, take a lot at the map. Also, Where do Southern Europe and Eastern Europe end? Bulgaria is Southern Europe, Romania is Eastern Europe? Lithuania is Northern Europe, but Belarus is Eastern Europe? Or the most obviously confusing one: Kosovo is Eastern Europe but Serbia is Southern Europe. Look at the map again. It seems the categories are more sort of political (prestige) classification than actual geographical realities. This is completely superfluous and also arbitrary. The subject of the articles is GDP per capita, not somebody's subjective country categorization. Either remove those columns, or allow countries to be categorized into multiple regions.

Fully Agree. It should be removed. Will take care about it later today NeonFor (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Estimates from IMF are partly very outdated

I've downloaded some parts of the IMF dataset under the link provided and it turns out many of those estimates are very outdated. Examples are:

1. Rwanda: estimate done in 2012
2. Tanzania: estimate done in 2012
3. Mozambique: estimate done in 2015
4. Ethiopia: estimate done in 2016
5. Uganda: estimate done in 2016

Just to mention a few. None of those estimate could have possibly taken COVID into account and my assumption therefore is that they are far from the real numbers. It might only hold true for African countries ... I didn't check many more than those mentioned.

How to doublecheck that: Download the database for the given subject GDP per capita PPP and you'll receive an Excel Sheet including the years when the estimates start.

Hi,

Good point!

In the source for Rwanda there's data for 2019, 2020, and 2021 but with a blue background. What does this blue background mean?

Also: do you think that 2021 data is based on an estimate done in 2012?

In any case, we should indicate in the table the year when the estimate was done, maybe in another column?

A455bcd9 (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

New IMF data

There is a new IMF data:

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPPC@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.235.188.97 (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2021

96.237.148.12 (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

That’s 2 years old should be update by now..

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Regional classification is garbage and only makes the whole table cluttered

Whoever came up with this idea, should probably start understanding that there is no neat way to classify countries into arbitrary geographic categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:2481:4400:9E2B:8A53:E1F6:AA15 (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022

style="text-align:left"| Poland * 2A02:A312:C444:D580:95A2:623E:732F:962A (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Guernsey's GDP is listed here as 52,500 dollars (2014) but should be 67,358 dollars (2020)

Here is the data: https://www.gov.gg/gdp#:~:text=Guernsey%20GDP%20per%20capita%20in,4%25%20lower%20in%20real%20terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickclarke35 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Change Guernsey's GDP from 52,500 dollars to 67,358 dollars (2020)

source https://www.gov.gg/gdp#:~:text=Guernsey%20GDP%20per%20capita%20in,4%25%20lower%20in%20real%20terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickclarke35 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a principal of the beginning of this article that we do not use figures based on national statistics, if those areas are available in either the IMF or World Bank, we will prefer to adopt from those particular sources. LVTW2 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

IMF has updated data from October 2021: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPPC@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/April/weo-report?c=512,914,612,171,614,311,213,911,314,193,122,912,313,419,513,316,913,124,339,638,514,218,963,616,223,516,918,748,618,624,522,622,156,626,628,228,924,233,632,636,634,238,662,960,423,935,128,611,321,243,248,469,253,642,643,939,734,644,819,172,132,646,648,915,134,652,174,328,258,656,654,336,263,268,532,944,176,534,536,429,433,178,436,136,343,158,439,916,664,826,542,967,443,917,544,941,446,666,668,672,946,137,546,674,676,548,556,678,181,867,682,684,273,868,921,948,943,686,688,518,728,836,558,138,196,278,692,694,962,142,449,564,565,283,853,288,293,566,964,182,359,453,968,922,714,862,135,716,456,722,942,718,724,576,936,961,813,726,199,733,184,524,361,362,364,732,366,144,146,463,528,923,738,578,537,742,866,369,744,186,925,869,746,926,466,112,111,298,927,846,299,582,487,474,754,698,&s=PPPPC,&sy=2010&ey=2026&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1 176.221.123.220 (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heartmusic678 (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally I will tend to wait for the next new IMF report released in the end of April for the fiscal year 2022, and I will do the data updates with other similar indexes all together. It’s now too late for doing so because the new figures will be changed in less than one month. LVTW2 (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Who is the absolute dumbass who messed up both GDP per capita ranking pages

Literally no one wants to see these averages, they only want to see the latest IMF data You are a grade A moron and should be ashamed Daehaksaeng (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Map is outdated

The map was last modified more than half a year ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:2498:EE00:62FB:E8BB:EB17:CC15 (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Algeria is in the wrong color

In the updated map,Algeria GDP(PPP) per capita is around 13000 dollars,but its color is still orange. Countries with GDP(PPP) per capita between 10000 and 20000 dollars are normally put in Yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.147.98.49 (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

You need to ping the creater @NeonFor:, I did not deal with the diagram. LVTW2 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Gdp per capita

Gdp per Capita ppp of many countries are wrong and misplaced them in wrong positions. 113.199.231.176 (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Gdp per Capita of many countries are wrong

The gdp per Capita of many countries are misplaced. For eg the gdp per Capita ppp is $5200 but it shows $4578 and takijistan actual gdp per Capita ppp is $3856 but it shows $4630 113.199.231.176 (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Please indicate which part of figures are presumed incorrect if any reliable database you can provided for supporting your claims, otherwise we take no presupposition on any data to be adopted in the list, which are compiled by the original IMF source. [4]LVTW2 (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The territories should be left unranked

Territories like Cayman Islands, Macau, or Puerto Rico should be unranked to give a reasonable ranking strength to the actual UN-member states. 2001:16A2:C113:39F:8CDB:EA21:31C8:1E05 (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

As per guidences of a RFC decision and a prior concensus, the index is to include and show all entries listed by the sources as such just like any other; the table would not address "ranking" in differentiation between list entries via numbering, italicization, bolding if the original sources do not distinguish. LVTW2 (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates change colour to blue

United Arab Emirates should be coloured blue in the map as it's 2022 GDP per capita is above $60,000. Could somebody please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkswapper1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

There's an error in the "Map of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita in 2022 by IMF.png", Taiwan's GDP (PPP) per capita is 68,729.509 in the source so it should be blue. 96.245.176.32 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Same response as above. You need to ping the creater @NeonFor::, I did not deal with the diagram, asking anyone else is capable of redraw it in Wikipedia Commons instead. LVTW2 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Skipping rank number for non-countries

Ranking becomes useless after some 10 non-countries like Hong-Kong, Macau etc are there in the list, which are marked with yellow background. So a mid-dash (—) can be put instead of ranking number for such territories which are not recognized as countries by UN. Crashed greek (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done :As per guidences of a RfC decision and a prior concensus, the index will include and display all entries listed by sources; the table is not used to differentiate list entries by omitting numbering, or inputting italics or bolding if the original source does not make such distinction. As the use of such labels frequently caused edit wars among editors in the past mainly due to divergent subjective opinions or dissension over the act of omitting upon certain entities, such as self-governing associated countries of Cook Islands or Greenland, or limited recognized states like Palestine, Kosovo or Taiwan. This type of non-political-related lists should not fall into endless political debates

You can try to use the sort function by clicking the first column of list to sort the relevant list in ascending order. For instance, for ranking IMF estimates in ascending order: Select "estimates" column underneath the topic of IMF. LVTW2 (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

There is already row colour distinction for these states. So skipping ranking will be on the same lines. A country is ranked 100 in GDP PPP per capita is what commonly used, and that doesnt include subordinate territories. Crashed greek (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Current vs constant

What's the reason for using the current international dollar instead of the constant (2017 as of typing this) dollar, thus inflation-adjusted? I'm trying to find this out online, but with no luck. Two major sources (OurWorldInData and theglobaleconomy) use constant (2011) int'l dollars. But the IMF dataset I'm downloading has GDPPPP/capita in both, but only gives GDPPPP in current dollars. Is it just for calculating things like RPPP? What's more useful for this table? SamuelRiv (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Territories that are not members of the United Nations.

You include Monaco and Taiwan in the ranking even though Taiwan and Monaco are not defined as independent countries according to the United Nations (as of 2022). they should be unranked like the other territories on the list that are not members of the United Nations. 79.178.232.151 (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan

Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations and is not considered an independent country so why is it ranked? Taiwan should not be ranked in the table because it is not an independent country according to the United Nations Fun71528 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Monaco and Lichtenstein

In my opinion, Monaco and Liechtenstein should not be part of the table and be included in the ranking, nor does the International Monetary Fund consider them. Qplb191 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

GDP ppp per capita

Why are Monaco and Lichtenstein are included? Qplb191 (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

Monaco and Liechtenstein are listed as territories in the table despite being independent countries and full UN members.

Source: other than the respective wiki pages, they're also on the official UN list: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states

This is not just a factual error but also affects the neutrality of the article because the two countries are the top entries on the list. 109.43.48.23 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done by another editor. Nythar^T.C 22:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

The map of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita in 2022 by IMF is wrong, Taiwan's GDP (PPP) per capita is 68730 in 2022 according to the IMF World Economic Outlook Database, April 2022, which is above 60000. However, it still shows that Taiwan's under 60000 on the map. Skyscraper cities (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. The article you're looking for is [5] Aaron Liu (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

Georgia should be switched to Europe. If Cyprus, a country often regarded to be geographically entirely in Asia, is classified as Europe, and if Russia, a transcontinental country should also be listed as Europe, it's not clear to me why Georgia is not. At the very least, Georgia is sometimes considered a transcontinental country, so placing it square in Asia seems like a political statement, rather than a factual one. And please don't start with this nonsense about United Nations, the UN Regional Groups has it under Eastern Europe.

On a separate subject, why does this list even need a continental breakdown? Why can't we just list these countries as is. All of this seems like a political statement and definitely not neutral. 2600:1700:20:1D80:A460:1100:CE8B:3434 (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Note that russia and cyprus are europe bc most of their population live there Aaron Liu (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Non IMF members

How can countries or territories for which there is no economic information from recent years be included in the table? How do we know, for example, that Ireland does not have a higher GDP per capita than Monaco? After all, the International Monetary Fund has not published economic data for these countries and there is no information about them! It is impossible to register countries or territories that are not members of the International Monetary Fund as long as it is our source! 2A10:8012:19:33E3:9C70:516E:77BA:FEDC (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree with you. The list should be restored to its previous form asap. NeonFor (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

But it is impossible to rely on one source, which is the International Monetary Fund for 2022, and then rank in the list countries on which there is no information at all from the International Monetary Fund and include them in the list, as I said, we do not know what their information is according to the International Monetary Fund and it is impossible to include them in a ranking for which there is no information about them information ,how do we know what is their GDP per capita according to IMF 2022? ? Fun71528 (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

So we all three basicily agreed that it should be restored to previous form.NeonFor (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Groverlynn You just need to understand that when we say that the table is according to the International Monetary Fund for October 2022, it’s impossible to include in the ranking countries or territories for which there is no information from the IMF. It is not possible for example to include Monaco in a table on which there is no information according to the International Monetary Fund, and then rank it in the table according to information from 3 years ago from another economic body, as I said , how do we know that Ireland, for example, does not have a higher GDP per capita than Monaco? After all, there is no economic information about this country. That's all, if the table is according to the International Monetary Fund for 2022, other data from different economic entities cannot be used. Fun71528 (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said, even the IMF data is not complete for its member economies. The latest estimates of Afghanistan is for 2020. There is simply no single consistent source. No matter how you try to make up rules, there will always be problems.

However, the original ranking bears the most problems, in my opinion. It is discriminative against non-IMF members, including several sovereignty states like Liechtenstein, Monaco, Cuba, and North Korea. Because they are not ranked in the original ranking due to being non-IMF members, when you rank the world bank or CIA data, they are not ranked either. It's ridiculous that two of the world's wealthiest economies are not ranked as one and two. On the other hand, several non-sovereignty-state economies, including Hong Kong, Macau, and Puerto Rico, are never ranked despite latest data available from all three sources. If data availability is the concern, why are they not ranked?

And, if data across different sources and different years are not directly comparable, as you repeatedly claimed, then you shouldn't put them in the same rank to begin with, rather than actually rank them but without assigning a numeral rank. The latter is the convention in dealing with double- or multiple-counted data entries, such as (aggregated) EU, (aggregated) emerging market economies, (aggregated) world, England (already included in UK) or Kashmir (already included in either India, Pakistan or China). The fact that both EU and world are presented in the table and are ranked exactly like that create great confusions.

Per wikipedia guideline, alphabetic order as the initial sorting is actually the best way.

Finally, I really don't understand why the IMF PREDICTION data for 2022, rather than the observed data for 2021, is used here, without even mentioning its projection nature. Groverlynn (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Groverlynn Let's start with the fact that you are wrong, the IMF publishes forecasts for all the countries or territories that are members of it with the exception of countries that have undergone extreme regime changes such as Afghanistan or Syria and thus it is actually impossible to follow their economic data and likewise no economic body in the world has updated data regarding Afghanistan or Syria as of 2022 . I will continue with the fact that currently the table is based on the IMF report for October 2022 which does not include countries or territories of which it is not a member, the IMF does not have economic data on these countries so make a table based on the IMF report for 2022 and then put countries in a ranking that have information about them from another economic body From 3 years ago it is impossible. The way the table was before is the best and to change it is extremely stupid and incomprehensible. Fun71528 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no source of Afghanistan's latest GDP (PPP) data does not justify you making exception for Afghanistan while refusing to apply the same on Monaco, Liechtenstein, etc.

The original table has more problems than any other formats. It's inconsistent with all the reasons you raised against other formats. It's discriminative against non-IMF members and non-sovereignty economies. It gives ridiculous and confusing results when ranking with World Bank or CIA data. The Wikitable code to exclude a row in the ranking already tells you that it should only be applied to the "total" or similar rows, but not to be used on normal rows, which is chaotic and confusing to readers.

Alphabetical order is the only reasonable initial sorting method here, and it's also the default sorting order used in the source IMF and World Bank databases. Groverlynn (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Groverlynn Absolutely not, it shouldn't be in alphabetical order, the original table was good and there is no real reason to change it. Countries or territories about which there is no information according to the IMF cannot be included in the ranking and you cannot claim otherwise when there is no information about these countries. The previous table should be returned. Fun71528 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The old table are terribly wrong. Predicted data should not be disguised as observed data as mix with other observed data. It's super misleading, especially considering some data points for 2022 were predicted using observed data points up to 2004, while others up to 2021. And that's not what the page is about.

And please stop repeating your invalid reasoning. Under the current alphabetic order, when one sort by IMF data in descending order, all economies without IMF data are pushed to the bottom, equivalent to not being ranked. The same applies for World Bank and CIA data. Groverlynn (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC

Alphabetical order is not ok, as this is not a random article, subject of the article is GDP PPP per capita. Please see WP:3RR before reverting. Ranking doesnt change much in an year or two, except some war or catastrophe in a country. Crashed greek (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

How can you say that the current table is better that each country has economic data from other years (some countries for 2020, some 2021, some 2016) it really doesn't make sense Fun71528 (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

To be honest I prefer the page as it is, but I wouldn't be opposed to include the non-IMF members in the ranking, like it is on the List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita article - just to have a unified format (though perhaps they should copy this one). I'm going to update the World Bank values as well, because they already released the 2021 data for most states - and so, it would paint a pretty accurate picture of the economic ranking/situation, if we were to include everybody. The World Bank is also the 2nd most go-to source for economic data, after the IMF (simply bc the IMF makes these biannual reports & usually has the newest info).

On the contrary, the World Bank data is the only widely used data in economics. IMF data are "fake" data. IMF uses predicted numbers to create a false image of "newest" data. It even has the newest 2027 data already. Groverlynn (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, I say it's pretty easy for non-ranked entities to deduce/calculate the exact number they'd land on, as long as they're correctly placed in the table - bc the layout is pretty visible & intuitive. So I don't think it matters *that* much. --Dhyana b (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the form we have now or the alphabetical order with sort possiblity are the two best options here. What we need to avoid is to mixing data with each other to create and virtual, non-existing in reality list. I am going to copy what we have here to List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita article to make it consitant. NeonFor (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A separate table can be made below for territories for which there is no IMF data. Crashed greek (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

A moderator already said that alphabetical order is not an option & I agree tbh. People may not be particularly happy with taking the non-IMF members out of the table, however I see that it would be more consistent with List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP). Dhyana b (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Manipulation of data part

There are no studies that show that observation of economic activity with light from space gives precise and unambiguous results on GDP, this is based on one study and should be removed. 81.215.72.239 (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I also wanted to comment that the correlation this study makes is pretty wild. There may be some correspondence, but in no way exact or proportional. I want to see if there's any peer-response to this study online & cite their opinion as well. Dhyana b (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

North Korea figures

NK figures are too low. You can't be nuclear power with those numbers. 188.252.206.20 (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

From what I understand the regime makes money from illegal selling of weapons & drugs, as well as straight-up hacking foreign bank accounts or Crypto schemes. This type of black market economy doesn't make it into the GDP. Dhyana b (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Methodological coherence

Please, in case of IMF PPP data, use the population provided by the IMF in its October Outlook 2022 https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/LP@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD

UN data are NOT THE SAME as IMF. There is a reason for IMF providing its own data on population, which should be know be author of the table

Not to mention by using two sets of data creates hilarious results, where GDP of some contries has risen by up to 15 % percent (e.g

Poland, Hungary, Portugal) in comparison with 2021 TRIBALIA212 (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood, the values on the IMF column come directly from the World Economic Outlook reports, not from calculations. Just the world value has been calculated & I used the UN reference bc it is a go-to / more specialised source for population data & bc this landmark number (8 billion) was newer than the October WEO report. -- Dhyana b (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

However, I modified it acc to your suggestion. -- Dhyana b (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Remove EU from list

EU doesn't even have a unified single currency. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden don't use EURO as their currency. EU is not qualified to be on the list.138.75.0.60 (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Typos in list: Taiwan, Andorra, Palestine

Can somebody check the list? There seems to be a strange typo, possible the comma, in the list for the World Bank column: if you sort it ascending or descending, Taiwan and Andorra appear marked with their numbers as the poorest countries in the world, although the figure given would put them into range 10-11 of the richest. Same goes for the column CIA, where Palestine is marked as the richest, despite a PPP figure qualifying for around rank 130. Must be a typo, but I can't see what kind. Anybody understands the table code? Thanks! Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That's because the World Bank database gave no figure for both Taiwan and Andorra, the columns thus leave blank with a dash. By ascending it those with no data would automatically ascending to the bottom. The initial ranks given by the list was a combination generated from three different sources to compare for the latest available data of each country, not just the IMF. LVTW2 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Zk778021162@gmail.com

4455 185.80.141.151 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Zk778021162@gmail.com

4397381 185.80.141.151 (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2023

India GDP per capita for ppp will be $8480 139.5.254.63 (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Zk778021162@gmail.com @ 185.80.141.151 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Zk778021162@gmail.com

4397381 185.80.141.151 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

This is all wrong data are all over the place and completely wrong. One doesn't have to consult IMF own website for data to see how wrong this is. Example being placing Slovakia _behind_ Hungary or Poland is just blasphemy. Slovakia is not very far off Czech republic to be honest, but it is _massively_ better than Hungary (like freaking 10 years ahead) and _noticeably_ better than Poland on a per capita level.

There are other discrepancies and list is anything but reflective of any real data, it is like 4000 USD plus or minus who cares all over the place. 82.35.71.210 (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Chart for 2022

When will someone add a fresh chart for 2022 data? I think its time Josipbepojakus (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about the IMF column, this year's (first) report will come out in April. Dhyana b (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. And when WorldBank? 90.170.114.22 (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Poorest Countries List" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Poorest Countries List has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 5 § Poorest Countries List until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Update Chart 2023

Please update the table with the IMF data april 2023. 90.170.114.22 (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Also edit mistakes regarding India and Cambodia's data. 122.50.224.133 (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Done Dhyana b (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!👏👏👏 90.170.114.22 (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need an asterisk next to every single country?

Or pretty close to all of them. I didnt look at every line. The chart begins with a headnote that says Nearly all country links in the table connect to articles titled "Income in (country or territory)" or to "Economy of (country or territory)". which I assume is what the asterisks are for. But even with that note I spent some time pawing around the list trying to figure out what I was missing. I would remove them, but they're being added by some process I don't understand since they arent string-literals. —Soap— 14:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Broken past tables

Accessing 2021 data displays "Template:Flaglist+link" in each row instead of country name. Robertiki (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2023

176.76.225.29 (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Set Czechia to a lighter color if green as it’s GDP PPP per capita is below 50k.

 Not done: that involves editing a map. Feel free to start a discussion about it either here or on Commons (where the map is hosted). M.Bitton (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Where is Qatar?

List doesn't have Qatar Syrpes (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Qatar İs Rich Country And After Fifa World Cup People started to know Qatar. 5.197.226.14 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Qatar is listed in the article and numbered as #4, so, if it had been left off previously, the problem has been corrected. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Geographical classifications

Why in the table, is Russia classified as Europe and Turkey as Asia? Eurasia would be a far more accurate conceptualisation. France indeed, for one (like Spain) is not solely European. It lies partly in South America too, and elsewhere! Spain is partly African. And so forth. It would be better in my view, to stop cancelling identities with such crude and inaccurate, exclusionary classifications. 78.182.151.122 (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

2024 Update

The IMF webpage now presents the 2024 values. A good chance to upadate this article.Skartsis (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2024

"Turkey" changed its official name to "Türkiye". Please update your article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedanticdidact (talk • contribs) 08:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been discussed extensively at Talk:Turkey, with consensus to retain the English spelling as it remains the common name. Tollens (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sovereign states

The status quo has been maintained for a long time, but since March, someone has been editing things such as whether it is a sovereign country or not, and whether or not to include numerical rankings. For example, for a long time Taiwan was ranked as a sovereign nation. Those conditions should not be changed by some people's personal opinions. I suggest keeping the state "oldid=1207707741" until the discussion is over. Minchuchui (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, you edit more than once in 24 hours and start an edit war instead of starting a discussion on the talk page. Second, it is no different in March, we took the table used by the World Bank which does not include territories and countries with partial recognition (you are welcome to see at the World Bank websit)

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD Qplb191 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit war was initiated by you. I am simply "restoring" what was unilaterally changed before reaching the discussion. For example, the edits you have made no longer refer to Taiwan as a sovereign state, but that should only be done when this conclusion of the discussion is "Taiwan should not be referred to as a sovereign state within this Wikipedia article".

Now, you say you referenced the World Bank page, but wikipedia and the World Bank are not identical. You can see that from other Wikipedia pages. What I am arguing is that Taiwan, which is often treated as a sovereign state in other Wikipedia articles, should be treated the same way. This is "consistent with its former version of article" prior to February. Minchuchui (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please look at the table, it is excellent to clarify that these are also countries like the World Bank, which is one of the most important economic bodies, I referred you to the concept of the World Bank that we used. You are the only editor who insists on this. Qplb191 (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If what you claim makes it OK to edit, then don't waste your time obsessing over this article and edit the other articles on wikipedia where it clearly states that Taiwan is a sovereign nation as well.

It is fine to change your opinion on this article, which does not get much attention, to some silly opinion like yours that Taiwan is not a sovereign nation, but if you change it to not treat Taiwan as a sovereign nation in some other article that gets more attention, many people will decide that you should not make that change, and it would be immediately reversed.

If you went to the trouble of editing the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita article, you could change the List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, and List of countries by GDP (nominal) on your own, as you believe.

These and the other four articles, including these, are the ones that people like you have changed the rankings in the past as if Taiwan were not a sovereign nation, but have been repeatedly turned back, and as a result, Taiwan has remained ranked as a sovereign nation for a very long time.

Either way, if you change your opinion now to a strange one that treats Taiwan as not a sovereign state, it will eventually be questioned by many people, including senior wikipedia users, and the status will be changed to the past when Taiwan was treated as a sovereign state. Minchuchui (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You did not look at the table at all, they did not claim that Taiwan is not sovereign, they claimed that it is a country with partial recognition as it appears in the World Bank table, which is one of the most important economic sources. I think you are a bit obsessive and you are in a minority opinion compared to all the editors that replied and explained to you. Qplb191 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If editors like me are in the minority, why was Taiwan treated as a sovereign nation for so long? That's because many people have thought the same way as me.

And for some reason you seem to be fixated on the World Bank, but can't you read the word "IMF" written to the left of the table that says "world bank"? Minchuchui (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

India

India should be yellow because its GDP (PPP) per capita is 10,203 US-Dollars. 2A02:908:D40:BA43:954F:B7FF:8D5E:8E18 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

it will be updated when 2024 map will release Titanx114 (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

{{edit semi-protected|List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita|ans122.161.241.244 (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Map has errors

The Map has errors. For example Chad should not be yellow SKAG123 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chad is fixed. Titanx114 (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2024

Map is incorrectly reflecting GDP for Czech Republic, which, like Lithuanian is above 50.000. Korbeldesign (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Afghanistan Habibi: Stop changing Iran's GDP numbers.

This is the second instance in which this user has been dramatically editing Iran's GDP per capita number without proper citation and likely with malicious intent.

The first instance was on the GDP (nominal) per capita page where he changed the IMF 2024 number for Iran from the verified $5,310 figure to $929 with the year 2018 inexplicably added and without any source.

Now he has changed it on this page from the official IMF 2024 figure of $21,220 to $2,065, curiously enough below Afghanistan and again without a source to back up this fabrication.

This is a degree of bizarre spitefulness which I am frankly embarrassed to even confront, but I am asking someone to please correct this fabrication and for an administrator to investigate what should be done about this user who likely won't stop spewing certifiable falsehoods regarding a particular country. 2603:8001:6802:C56D:D0D4:79B4:D1FF:B210 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me add an addendum: this was the second instance in which this user has revised without cause Iran's GDP numbers. He did it again on the nominal per capita page after it was corrected the first time, changing it again from its correct data of $5,310 to $516, a conclusion he apparently divined by removing six zeros from Iran's nominal GDP (according to the IMF) and dividing it by the population (the equation being 0.005168, but whatever...). This demonstrates a flagrant disregard for the rules and ethics of this website (not to mention laughable and shameless methodology) and should be dealt with accordingly by an administrator. 2603:8001:6802:C56D:D0D4:79B4:D1FF:B210 (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Lithuania

Lithuania should not be blue as it‘s GPD PPP does not surpass the 60,000 USD threshold. Alcame01 (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Lithuania is now fixed. Titanx114 (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Additionally I would appreciate it if You could correct Czech Republic, Oman, Bosnia and the Republic of Congo (but not the Democratic Republic of Congo). I would do it myself but I do not know how to do it. Thank You very much again for Your effort. 2A05:1141:1DC:8100:4D21:F4E:7275:3F60 (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Czech Republic, Oman, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republic of the Congo has been updated Titanx114 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

thank you very much! Alcame01 (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Iran's GDP per capita is wrong

IMF has put Iran's GDP per capita at 21,219.523 but it has been published here wrongly at 5472. 212.80.14.234 (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Also removed the duplicate entry for Iraq while I was in there. PianoDan (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The ranking is still wrong. Seems that you did not sort the table out after correcting the number. 2A02:4540:28:B94:966D:9C29:85F9:2A48 (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, got it - didn't realize that the items weren't auto-sorted at all when you first load the page. Fixed. PianoDan (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistencies between related pages

There are a total of 4 Wikipedia pages related to list of countries by gdp.

List of countries by GDP (nominal),

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita,

List of countries by GDP (PPP),

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita.

The problem is that even though all the pages use the data released by the IMF and sort and order the data by that, they treat countries like Taiwan and Kosovo very differently on each page.

On the GDP and PPP per capita pages, Taiwan and Kosovo have a grey background,

while on the GDP per capita and PPP pages, Taiwan and Kosovo have a white background like the other countries.

In former versions of GDP and PPP per capita pages, the criteria was simply "whether or not there is individual IMF data", regardless of whether the region was a country or not, or whether it was not a limited recognition.

In other words, the condition for a grey background and no ranking number to be displayed was  no IMF data . In that version, countries with individual IMF data, such as Taiwan and Kosovo, were properly ranked, and countries without IMF data, such as North Korea and Syria, had a grey background.

To resolve this current strange situation, I would like to make a suggestion.

In all four pages of GDP, GDP per capita, PPP, and PPP per capita, the criteria for not ranking numbering is set to  no IMF data .

This is the same state as the previous version.

No matter what conclusion is reached regarding how to number the rankings in this discussion, I hope that the handling on all four pages will be unified.

This discussion was started here. Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal) Minchuchui (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Map show chile and uruguay in wrong color

If the map based on IMF vaules. They should be green Ephraim pontecorvo (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chile and Uruguay is now updated

Titanx114 (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

World Bank published values inconsistent with those listed on this page

The world bank recently revised it's purchasing power estimates for a number of countries which has resulted in some reasonably significant differences in some countries, linked is a small number of countries I checked on the World Bank website, the largest difference being for Russia going from $34,638 to $40,957 Acomputer1 (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)