Talk:List of sovereign states in Europe by GDP (nominal)

Turkey is in europe

Turkey is a part of Europe in every way, they will soon become a member of the European union an is such recarded as a european country by the union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.118.234 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is not in Europe, the Anatolian peninsula is not a part of Europe.... It is like Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan; a part of it is in Europe but it is not in Europe completely. Additionally, Turkey will be a member of EU after Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan become members of EU, which is probably never

It doesn't matter either way, the countries on the image are simply there because it might be useful to see their GDP with respect to Europe 99.236.220.155 (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Let us settle this 'Turkey in Europe' issue for Wikipedia at large. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Europe list Turkey alongside Armenia Georgia and Azerbaijan. It seems soneone removed it from here.

---

So, it seems someone removed Turkey from this list based on the comment below. Azarbaijan, Armenia and Georgia all to her east remain though. If this is goping to be a matter of many edits and controversy it is not worth reinserting Turkey into this list, but then we have a consistency problem because Turkey is listed on other lists concerning Europe.

---

Why is there Turkey on the "List of European countries by GDP", we speak here about Europe, not the EU, Turkey can get part of EU, but never part of europe...

---

Why there is no Moldova on this list? it is situated between Romania and Ukraine - thus it is a part of Europe... For methodologies of calculation see below.

Why is Turkey in the list? Something like 3% of Turkey's landmass is in actually Europe.

---

State % of total Population in Europe Russia 73.75 Georgia 54.63 Azerbaijan 50.42 Turkey 16.03 Kazakhstan 8.71 Armenia 0 Cyprus 0

---

additional columns

It would be good to add some additional coumns:

• GDP purchasing power parity (PPP)
• GDP per capita in USD
• GDP per capita in USD-PPP

Alinor 20:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

---

This list is wrong. Russia's GDP is PPP and other countries GDP are not the same as on either IMF or World Bank lists.

No Turkey?

So Turkey is not in EU, but officially a candidate country. But Russia is in EU? Also Kazakhistan? LOL!!! Are you armenian or greek? No need to say, you can't be someone else to make this judgement.

Further Points

• I have removed the verification box, since the sources are now cited and verifiable.

• All countries nominally and conventionally considered European (including Turkey, Cyprus, Georgia, Russia etc) SHOULD be included in the list. Debates regarding whether a nation is or is not European are not appropriate to this particular article. Consequently, it should be as inclusive as possible to reflect the views of all.

• I have added Albania, which was strangely not included in the table.

Simmyymmis 00:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Bosnia?

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 Bosnia is with 9,425 , on this page it is with a much higher value. Please.

Delete or rename article?

This article no longer contains significant encyclopaediac content relevant to its title, since the majority of it contains highly speculative (and therefore completely meaningless - unless the IMF owns a time-portal!) future GDP estimates, with all factual historical data purged. Even 2007 is partly estimated. I'm sure the contributor who dumped all the IMF data in thought they were being helpful, but this article is now little more than fantasy. I think it should either be moved to a new title or deleted.

Simmyymmis (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is how it looked before it was updated. This article now contains the most up to date 2007 figures available anywhere, plus new estimates. I don't see the problem. If you wish to add back figures from 2005-2006, go ahead. There is no reason to delete or rename the article, since it does in fact show all European countries by GDP. Sbw01f (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article predominantly shows non-factual guess-timates of future European GDP. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear on future-prediction. We cannot possibly make meaningful estimates of GDP up to 5 years in advance, which makes most of the IMF data meaningless, and certainly not relevant to an article about the present. I suggest that in order to make this more relevant, the future guess work (at least from 2010) should be removed, and the latest year in which figures are not based on any estimates at all be restored. It may also benefit from a wider range of sources. It would be nice to hear what others think on this. Simmyymmis (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer the old one, as it looks somewhat more professional and doesn't involve future-predicting, but that's just me --81.109.192.190 (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ranking according to which column?

I see that the initial ranking (i.e., before the reader presses on of these buttons) is currently a mess. Is it neither sorted according to 2007 column nor the 2008 or 2009 column.

I propose to use the most recent (i.e., most reliable) column as a reference, and will implement this soon. Any objections? Tomeasy _{T C} 19:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 seems the most logical choice to me. Sbw01f (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why? Tomeasy _{T C} 11:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it's the most recent year. Sbw01f (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I do not understand. We are in 2009 now. So, 2009 would be the column most closely connected to now - most recent, one could say. However, 2009 data is just an estimate, because 2009 is not accomplished yet. So, it is somehow uncertain. But so is 2008 - just an estimate.

I see solid arguments to rank for the column 2007 as well as ranking for the column 2009, but to rank for 2008 seems questionable. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 data is an estimate made in October, so they had a solid data for the first three quarters of and just had to guesstimate the last quarter. 2009 would be a complete ballpark. I don't strongly oppose using 2007 data though, was just giving my opinion. Sbw01f (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Which makes it still an estimate, and gone is the argument that it is the most recent factual data. There is another point to mention: It is highly uncommon to sort a table for one of the central columns - certainly, no reader would expect this.

For me either of the outer two columns would be fine as a reference. Would you like to pick one? Tomeasy _{T C} 17:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)