Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)

Archives

2004-2005

2006

2007

2008

"Is the EU a country?"

The european union is a country?

i thought that was just some political thing, but its like a real country like america? how come its not listed in the list of countries article? and also, what is the eurozone? Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.189.195 (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a country, it is a sui generis entity. But the discussion on whether to include it boiled down to the fact that the sources choose to list it. And it was decided to list it with various caveats. The discussions can be found on this page and on the archives. As for the eurozone, go to the wiki article. Canada Jack (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the 2008 World GDP figure really accurate?

In a year that ended in recession and with the major indices down some 35-50%, how is it that world GDP grew by about 60%. Is this accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Didshe (talk • contribs) 16:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be comparing apples and oranges. 2007 data is in 2007 dollars, 2008 data is in 2008 dollars, and the dollar may have lost value between these measurements. In any case, all the data is subject to currency fluctuations and these GDP data collections are relatively slow to capture swings in global economy, as many of the sources estimate GDP from data a couple years old. This page is not an independent accurate estimate of country GDP but instead a page listing GDP data from major trusted sources with known flaws.65.15.106.85 (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, the analysis had not yet caught up. The April 2009 World Economic Outlook (IMF) says nominal global GDP at market exchange rates rose by $5,849 billion in 2008 and will drop by $5,826 billion in 2009.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

World Bank figures are inaccurate

We must delete the world bank list because it is inaccurate in every way. There is no way the EU is smaller than the US so we must delete it. I know a lot will agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.57 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The World Bank figures show the Eurozone not the EU which is much larger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.47.54 (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In the CIA.gov website some of the gdp is listed in trillions and others in millions. This site is representing them all as millions, which is significantly reducing the actual gdp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.90.198 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The April 2009 World Economic Outlook (IMF) has the EuroZone at US$13,637 bilion in 2008, the US at $14,265 billion and the EU at $18,394 billion. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Is the EU a country?"

Discussion moved to archives. Mediation case now closed. Conclusion statement left here for editors to agree finer details. Any problems or questions please get in touch. SilkTork *^YES! 19:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

• The EU to remain in List of countries by GDP (nominal).

• The EU to be positioned according to GDP rank between World and USA.

• No consensus on the EU appearing in all three charts. By convention this means the situation would remain as current - that is the EU remains on all three charts.

• Data for the EU on each chart to only be given if sourced, otherwise a dash to replace the data.

• Explanation to be placed in the lead section for the appearance of the EU and other non-countries. Possible wording: "Several economies which are not normally considered to be countries (or whose classification as a country is ambiguous or in dispute) are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison."

• The List retains the current name.

• A suggestion by Tomeasy that I feel should be carried out is that the sister articles are given the same treatment as agreed above.

TO Siktork It appears that most of the things you have concluded above was not reached in a very logical manner. NO AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION will make the word COUNTRIES include the EU. You people just justified on making the word COUNTRIES include the EU with endless quoting and blabbering. Cmon you people are more educated than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.205 (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If this conclusion is agreed I will close the Mediation and leave it up to you guys to carry out the agreed actions. SilkTork *^YES! 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• One minor comment. I would rephrase the explanation slightly as "not normally considered" leaves the possibility that they may in fact sometimes be considered countries. Therefore I would leave out the word normally and make it "not considered". For the rest, thanks a lot for your support and suggestion SilkTork. Arnoutf (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• I've never seen a better executed systematic refusal to inject accuracy into an article. What changed? Nothing! Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I phrased the line as "not normally considered countries" not in reference to the EU (which is never considered to be a country) but to some of the entities like Hong Kong (which some even here argue can be considered a country), the West Bank/Gaza, Kosovo. Perhaps since even that might raise nationalist hackles, might even be better to say "not considered a country or whose classification as a country is ambiguous or in dispute."

As for Founder's comment, while if we followed his suggestions and omitted the EU from the main list, it may indeed accurately reflect the definition of "country," the likely reason for its inclusion by the sources is that the figures are seen to be relevant. And I hasten to point out that while Founder may find this definition of country reason enough to exclude the EU, the sources do not. If wikipedia is to remain relevant, we must accurately reflect the decisions of the sources when disputes like this arise. Canada Jack (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should in deed include normally for the reason that Jack explained.

I think the rest has been discussed fairly enough and Founder wouldn't agree to the concluded argumentation, if it was explained a hundred times more. I am left wondering whether "Intellectual dishonesty" or intellectual scarcity is the reason for this. Excuse my tone, but I am really irritated by these repeatedly ventilated accusations. I, at least, was not lying during this discussion and generally, nobody should say this about anyone. Tomeasy_talk 17:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the word "considered" already allows for a subjective interpretation as that does not rule out that a country may not be reported. Adding normally sounds like a consensus qualifier, which is vulnerable to the question - Which is the majority of institutes that do make this "normal". Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a feeling from some that the real underlying motivation here is to ensure that a favoured country/bloc remains at top and that the rules and definitions be altered to ensure that prominence is ensured. I appreciate that sentiment but it cuts both ways. While one can't be too slippery with definitions so as to allow anyone in, one must also recognize that there is ambiguity on the subject and the sources themselves reflect that ambiguity. The sources themselves explicitly state that ambiguity and implicitly acknowledge in so doing that excluding the information would make the lists less relevant and less useful. The function of these lists, after all, is to make meaningful comparisons, not to score points for your favoured country/bloc. To me, that is being intellectually honest. To pretend otherwise, to pretend that there is a set, firm way of doing this and that to do otherwise renders wikipedia little more than a cheering section for one point of view, is to me being intellectually dishonest. Canada Jack (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I made the offer to leave it listed on the page, but in a second table with other country groups. It was ignored or rejected by the other side. Tomeasy, you can keep your insults to yourself, you compromised NOTHING. I made the attempt. The article is about a list of countries, and the EU is not a country. How much plainer would you like it? Canada Jack's assessment is partially correct, but the EU zealots didn't want to even go for a compromise. Please send the smugness elsewhere, it isn't appreciated here. Going for a listing on the same page looked like a defeat, right? Shameful --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 01:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The compromise is that the EU is not ranked. The article is about a list of countries, and the EU is not a country. How much plainer would you like it? The sources, despite calling the lists in some cases "countries" explicitly say that non-countries are on the lists. How much plainer can you get? Your quaint objection seems only calculated to ensure America remains #1, even though by some measures it no longer has that rank. If no one made the measurement, your objection would stand. However, they do, and that is the point. And since the CIA chooses to measure the EU in its "country" list, your comment about "EU zealots" misses the mark. Canada Jack (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

why don't you just sticky the USA at rank 1 for all times no matter what the facts say and re-include the EU? this way both sides would be happy ... Lightxx (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

YES.Don't be offensive!I'm a EU Asshole! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.194.112 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

EU is as much of a country as most of the "United States" "United Emirates" and every other "united" or "federated" named countries. If EU would be removed based on "not" being a country then the WORLD value should also be removed. And the EU is "relevant" on a world scale ... at least to 1/4th of the world economy it represents "home" ... so if 1/4th of the world economy is irrelevant the 1/5th of USA are also irrelevant .. .and what to say about the rest of the world?? [[User:Dickhead] (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC) "A federation (Latin: foedus, covenant) is a union comprising a number of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central ("federal") government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states is typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the central government." < for those not knowing what a federation is. [[User:Dickhead] (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC) For the American readers ... think of the EU as a close relative to the USA but with the states having a say on international , domestic and other matters ... and unlike the often quoted organizations and international agreements the EU is a federation ... a new kind of one or should I say ... one just like the former USSR ??? [[User:Dickhead] (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

How could anyone think the EU is a country? Its a economical and a political pact between many countries. Why not include all economical agreements on this list, why stop with only the EU? Lets add Opec, NAFTA, and the others. The EU does not meet the defoniton of 'country'no mater how badly some people want it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.186.249 (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If The EU is a country then why are France and Germany and other European countries being listed in the same chart? Shouldn't the 50 US states be counted too then? (eRegion) 15:43, 31 December 2009

request for semi-protection

I find it very disturbing that—while having mediation on whether or not to include the EU—some IPs are blatantly vandalizing the article. That is, either simply removing the disputed object (the EU), as is doing 202.128.34.205 here and on GDP per PPP; or putting fantasy numbers for the EU, as is doing 202.128.34.47. The suspicion that the IPs are operated by the same person seems not too far fetched I would say. Perhaps, one might even have a check on their specifics. Anyway, these IPs do not get tired repeating their destructive behavior just as often as they are told to await the result of the mediation. I find this state so discouraging that I hope others will agree with me that semi-protection, as to excluded non-registered user, hould be imposed. Tomeasy_talk 22:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, all right but I am just wondering when will the results of the mediation be known?--Geographyfanatic (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have requested a semi protection of this article, let's see what are the results. Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection done, and IP most likely blocked because of the 3RR, I hope it was not a poppet. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation varies depending on the circumstances and the people involved, so it is not possible to predict how long it will take. I would hope that any decision made here related to this issue will stand for years to come, and given that this dispute goes back to 2004 - not long after the article was originally formulated - a few days to settle the matter properly will be small enough. Be prepared for at least a week, and likely longer. Best bring sandwiches and some Vaseline. SilkTork *^YES! 18:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you meant when you mentioned Vaseline on this page? Thank you--Geographyfanatic (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Vaseline prevents blisters during long walks or marathons. I'm suggesting we may be in for a long haul. This is a long standing dispute. The solution is not one to be rail-roaded by impatience, loud voices, or majority vote. While some people have brought a solution to the table already bought and packaged, others have brought the opposite solution. Nobody is budging, because at the moment everyone sees their own solution bright and clear. What needs to happen is for the article to be deconstructed and reassembled. That is not a physical deconstruction, but an intellectual one. What is the purpose of the List? How can we best achieve the purpose of the List? Why would anyone want a list of countries by GDP? What is that telling us? Does having the EU help or hinder that purpose? Would having other monetary unions in the list be helpful? Is it possible to have a larger List of GDP units which is then broken down into areas such as countries and monetary unions? We may consider a number of areas and end up back where we started. But at least we'll have a record that we explored all the serious options rather than carried on repeating the same mantra. Having evidently gone through a rigorous and intellectual process will reassure future readers that the structure and format of the List is as secure and as justified as we could make it. A simple majority vote, or an authoritative decision by a chairman or mediator will not cut much ice in a year's time. What we need is the clear consensus of those taking part in this discussion that the decision we reach makes sense to all parties. That is not to say that everyone will be happy with the decision, but that everyone will understand the decision and the reasons for it. SilkTork *^YES! 22:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

SilkTork, thanks for the comment on the semi protection, the same sentence was given to me by another administrator. If needed more protection will be asked as long as it makes sense.

I am planning to bring to the table the top 10 uses of GDP data, that may clarify why we including the European Union makes sense. Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an article on the uses would serve better. But it is irrelevant to the article in question. Change the title to GDP of world economies, and I'll have no problem. As it is, the EU should remain unlisted. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 11:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you just focusing on the EU? A number of non-independent territores are also listed. Do you want those removed to? Given your fixation on the EU (which is not listed as a country), and having read your profile, I belive your objection might be more to do with nationalistic chauvinism than anything else. While it is true the EU is not a nation, it has many of the aspects of a nation, espically when it comes to economics and trade. The presidence for the EU has been set a 1000 times over in a wide range of different articles...which I suggest you go and read. The EU exists, it has a GDP exceeding that of the USA, deal with it. 143.167.184.174 (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC) MattUK

Hey Matt. If the EU's GDP was less than the US's You'd be fighting tooth and nail to keep it off the lists. Sourced or not. You're argument would be "EU is not a country" and we both know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.48.147 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The EU should not be listed it is not a country and irrelevant to the chart. What not list NAFTA too or other allied organizations? Neutralis (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

TAGS

Yesterday evening 2 tags were added to the article.

A tag stated that the article was not neutral in its point of view. As the mediation on that issue is ongoing and that opinion does not seem to be a majority view, I do not think this tag will benefit the article in any way.

The second tag asked for more sources. But as the inline information clearly links to the used sources from which the lists are derived, and these lists are about 95% of the content, I truly cannot see what these sources should be about.

Therefore I removed both tags. (obviously I left the temporarily blocked for anon's tag) Arnoutf (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Big weakness of Wikipedia - it's absurd that the EC is listed as a country - what a silly decission to keep it thus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.255.218 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Excuse me if I interpose myself in this page but Liechtenstein's GDP data from the CIA list is off by an order of magnitude. This is compared to GDP data from the country page as well as common sense. Should the data be corrected to reflect the actual GDP, or is it better to maintain the incorrect number to remain consistent with the dataset? 69.40.57.232 (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.57.232 (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It maybe a typo, either here or on the Liechternstein article, so we need to check the actual CIA website to confirm; and make sure that number is reflected in both articles.

Nope it is not! 36,330 Million is the number reported by the CIA, that fits with this list! Arnoutf (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The number is quite obviously a mistake and had already been identified as such. The above is a footnote on Lichtenstein quoted from List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita.

The value from the original source has been changed. The CIA World Factbook reports a value for Liechtenstein of $1,060,823. This seems extraordinarily high and is probably the result of GDP data erroneously reported as $36.33 billion instead of $3.633 billion. To give credence to this hypothesis the Landesverwaltung Liechtenstein reports that the provisional GDP for 2004 was CHF4.279 billion and the GDP per capita for the same year was CHF162,000. Using the average exchange rate of the Swiss franc to the US dollar in 2004, as given by the CIA, this results in a GDP of US$3.441 billion and GDP per capita of US$130,277. Had the CIA GDP value been reported as $3.633 billion, this would have resulted in a GDP per capita of $106,082. To give further credence to this, the United States Department of State reports a GDP of $3.52 billion (CHF4.28 billion) for Liechtenstein on its country profile article dated October 2007.

Remains the question what to do when our sources introduce a typo. I argue for reporting the intended value. Tomeasy_talk 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Add a footnote notifying readers of the unlikely number? Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the one that I've cited does the trick in an appropriate way. Tomeasy_talk 17:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The footnote, and therefore the new number, sounds to me like original research. While the basis for believing there is an error here may be sound, it is merely the opinion of some wikipedians what the error here is and what the "real" figure is. I'd say we note the original number with a footnote indicating that the number seems out of line with other reported data, and list that reported data while omitting the speculation as to what the error was and what the true figure actually is. "This seems extraordinarily high and is probably the result of GDP data entered as 36.33 instead of 3.63..." Sure, but maybe "6" was punched in in error and the true figure is 3.33 billion, for example. The figure on the page here, IOW, is merely speculation as to the error.

From the data supplied from other sources, it will be pretty clear that something around 1/10th the figure is the likely correct ballpark figure. Canada Jack (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides my objection as stated above in terms of original research, it seems there is an error in the footnote: Using the average exchange rate of the Swiss franc to the US dollar in 2004, as given by the CIA, this results in a GDP of US$3.441 billion and GDP per capita of US$130,277. Had the CIA GDP value been reported as $3.633 billion, this would have resulted in a GDP per capita of $106,082.

But why does the higher GDP figure (3.633 billion) result in a substantially lower per capita GDP (106k)? Surely Lichenstein's population hasn't risen the substantial portion it would need to by 2006/07 to lower per capita GDP by something like 20 per cent! This doesn't sound correct. Canada Jack (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh... right. Exchange rates... Is that it? Canada Jack (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tom Easy and I exchanged a few e-mails on this and to us it makes sense to insert a nominal figure - say 3.500 billion - and put it in italics to flag the fact that the figure is problematic. He and I both agree that we lack a basis to "correct" the figure to 3.633 when we have no basis to know that that was the intended figure. Clearly, the figure is wrong by an order of magnitude or so, but instead of guessing what the correct figure should be, we thought inserting the nominal figure, italicized with a footnote would be the best course of action, though the footnote should be rephrased.

So, we suggest 1) Liechtenstein's GDP be listed as 3,500 instead of 3,633 (with the advantage here that the overall rank would remain the same); 2) the rank, country name and GDP figure be italicized so as to flag the fact there is a problem with the entry; 3) the footnote read something like: This is an approximate figure inserted for the sake of comparison with other economies. Given large discrepancies between the CIA stated figure of $36.33 billion and other data assumed to be accurate, the CIA figure is presumed to be erroneous by an about an order of magnitude. The Landesverwaltung Liechtenstein reports that the provisional GDP for 2004 was CHF4.279 billion. Using the average exchange rate of the Swiss franc to the US dollar in 2004, as given by the CIA, this results in a GDP of US$3.441 billion. In October 2007, the United States Department of State reported a GDP of $3.52 billion (CHF4.28 billion) for Liechtenstein on its country profile article.

I would like to add some explanation with respect to our motivation of changing the value in the wiki list from 3.633 to 3.500. The former insinuated that there was a credible reasoning to state a precise number, while we can only report the order of magnitude in a credible way. Moving one decimal of the CIA figure was nothing more than guessing. By purposely stating a figure with less significant digits, we are honest about not knowing the precise value. However, we have a strong basis for giving an approximate value and therefore we employ exactly this and nothing more. Tomeasy_talk 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Eurozone GDP figures added

As per our discussions here earlier, I saw fit, now that the World Bank tabulates the figure, to include the Eurozone figures in place of the blank European Union figure (the World Bank does not include a separate tabulation). As I have argued before, if the sources see fit to tabulate the figure, we should include it. So as these tables are updated as the sources update their figures, we should not be surprised to see European Union and/or Eurozone figures. Added bonus for those who saw this as a "plot" to push America's GDP into second place - the Eurozone figure is smaller than America's! Canada Jack (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Stephan altered the Eurozone entry to exclude the EU flag which accompanied it. I put it back as I reasoned that as a subset of the European Union, using the EU flag for the EZ was justified. Indeed, they do this on the Eurozone page. So, while the EZ per se has no flag, it is a constituent part of the EU. Also, Stephan reverted a change someone made to the archive page, which is fine. But it was from someone chortling that despite the EU having "twice" the population of the USA, it has a smaller economy according to the World Bank. This is, simply put, wrong, as it is the Eurozone, comprising 15 of 27 European Union countries, which has the smaller economy, and roughly the same population. (320m EZ, 304 USA). The EU by all nominal measures of the GDP, is clearly bigger than the USA. (Population EU 497m, USA 304m) But even this may not tell the story, as it was reported in March that the Eurozone had a bigger economy as the value of the Euro reached an all-time high of 1.56 to the US dollar. It is not clear what exchange factors the World Bank used, but those reports do not reflect what the World Bank now says. (The euro is still around 1.56/1.57 to the US dollar) Canada Jack (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Now an image of the 1 euro coin has been inserted. But I still feel we need a flag, not a coin. So, if the EU flag doesn't pass muster, I have two other suggestions. There is a flag for the European Central Bank (go there, a bot zapped my placement of it here) which is the monetary governing body for the Eurozone. Or, there is the € symbol on a blue background which might make more sense. Canada Jack (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a euro coin as icon for the eurozone. I think this is the most appropriate, for a zone with inclusion selected by the currency. The eurozone should not be confused by the European Union. You can see at the eurozone article, that there are European Union countries that do not use the euro, while there are countries outside the European Union that do. It are mostly the new countries that do not (yet) use the Euro, but the group also includes Great Brittain and Denmark. Using the euro coin as icon will also prevent confusion with the European Union to the left and right of it.

I hope Canada Jack and Stephan Schulz agree that this is the best option. And to prevent that my edit is being looked to as editwarrish, want to note I came up with the idea about half an hour before Canada Jack reverted the removal of the EU flag by Stephan Schulz. =Species8473= ^(talk) 16:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the proposed European Central Bank icon too, as an accurate icon for the zone. That does not cause direct confusion with the European Union. =Species8473= ^(talk) 16:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Species, take another look at the eurozone page. Next to the "eurozone" figures in the "members" chart is the European Union flag. So, on the eurozone page the same question was asked and they opted for the EU flag. Canada Jack (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of accuracy, the ECB "flag" as pictured above may in fact be a logo, an icon as Species says, and not a "flag." Canada Jack (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly flexible about what symbol is used - a simple Euro symbol on any background would do. The EU flag is not acceptable, as the Eurozone is very different from the EU (as other have pointed out). It is confusing, especially if the same symbol is used with a different meaning in the other two tables. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I found is that in the worldbank GDP list the word Euro area is used. Shouldn't we use the same as the source? And does this area include the countries outside the EU that use the euro, or just members? Also at note a in our article, a July 1 2008 list of eurozone countries is given. Are those even the same countries of the euro area that the worldbank used in its 2007 list? Because I think that is what matters, not what countries are currently or were most recently part of the eurozone. Also if countries outside the EU are not included in the worldbank euro area that would strike out usage of the euro coin icon. While if those countries are included the European Central Bank icon would not be appropriate. =Species8473= ^(talk) 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say use "eurozone" as that is what we use here. Besides, there are name variations on the WB list, such as "Russian Federation" which we don't apply here. In general, when we hear "euro area" or "eurozone," that refers to the 15 EU countries which use the euro and their economies, not to the others who also use the euro such as Kosovo, etc. As for your point whether these are the same countries as 2007, that is why I made note of the countries within the EU which were using the euro on 1 July 2008, the date of the posted data. We don't know if they are posting in fact 2007 data which might exclude Malta and Cyprus, but we are limited by what the source tells us. If the source said "as of Dec 31 2007" or "2007" then we'd note the 13 then-members of the eurozone, and after Jan 1, 2009 data as 16 members once Slovakia accedes. I suppose one could make a similar point about the EU itself, though its only expanded twice in the past dozen years, while the eurozone started with 11 in 1999 and has expanded three times since, will expand again in six months and again in 2010 and/or 2011 in all likelihood. Canada Jack (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The numbers are alredy old.Taking official estimates of 2007 GDP, the Eurozone is the largest economy in the world. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.82.47.224 (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that we after long discussion only include already calculated figures for the European Union or eurozone. It is not our place to add country GDPs to arrive at a EU figure, for example, if that figure wasn't already supplied by the source. Also, as others above noted, the WB figure for the eurozone was for 2007, not for July 1 2008 as I had mistakenly indicated in a footnote. Hence, the eurozone was 13, not 15 countries for the tabulation. And, as the person above noted, (and I noted near the top of the thread), reports in March indicated that the eurozone had exceeded American GDP. Next year when the WB updates their figures that change will be presumably reflected. But there is no need for some footnote or othernote as we are simply reflecting the source tabulations, not "correcting" the ranks. Canada Jack (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Some doofus keeps treating this like a EU/USA competition suggesting pro-EU types want to figure out a way to remove the WB list as it lists the EU after the USA. Again, the full EU figures are substantially larger on all lists than the USA figures. The only way they are smaller is if you only look at the eurozone figures, which were for 13 of 27 EU countries as of the end of 2007. And that is reflected in the WB list. Unfortunately for Mr. Pro-America, the eurozone has since the WB figures (end 2007) expanded to 15 countries (16 in January 2009) and media reports this March indicated that dollar depreciation means even the eurozone is now bigger than the USA, with comparable populations. So, if it means a lot to you to see America #1, then enjoy the chart as it currently stands, as this is in all likelihood the last time we'll ever see America on the top of any of the lists. There is long-term solace for the patriotic American, however. If we just look at entities which are nations, China will likely eventually surpass the United States, but probably not for 20 years or so. Canada Jack (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a small note: the guy is actually from the Philippines; his/her POV is probably more anti-EU than pro-US and is trying to insert that under various dynamic Philippinion IPs since quite some time now. [2][3][4][5][6] --Van helsing (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WHY WAS AL REMOVED

i hate it when i put alot of work into something, and then check a page later on and find that my efforts have ben removed without an explanation....urgh...

i have included the statistics for the Arab League in the three tables, and have been removed, ofcourse i couldnt tell when and where... since the "contributor" decided not to explain why he finds the Arab League an unecessary piece of Information, althought the EU is included as well as the UN... so the concept of including a Major organization is their... right?? --Arab League User (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I could neither find your original edit nor the removal. But my guess is that the Arab League was removed because it is not in the sources. And I suspect it is not in the sources because it is not an economically unified organization. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

World Bank figures are inaccurate

We must delete the world bank list because it is inaccurate in every way. There is no way the EU is smaller than the US so we must delete it. I know a lot will agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.57 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The world bank does not include EU data, but Eurozone data. We label it accordingly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Spain and the G8

Spain has as of now a larger economy than Canada while it has also overtaken Italy in per capita income. How can be explained that Spain is not in the group and Canada, with a smaller economy is?. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

Canada doesn't have a smaller economy. a couple billion dollars difference in a 1.45 trillion dollar gdp could be due to error.

Canada and Spain have the same nominal gdp and Spain has 13-15 million more people so Canada has a higher gdp per capita (Canada's gdp per capita is higher than every g8 country except the US). Canada exports almost 2 times more than Spain. Canada is 9th largest world trading nation Spain is not in top 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.250.83 (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Newcomer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.55.4 (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is quite simple. Canada was added to the G6 in 1976 when its economy was larger than Spain's, and when Canada was a democratic society while Spain was emerging from the Franco years. Since then, countries have not been added save for Russia's arguably political inclusion in 1997, as this is not a group of the seven or eight or so wealthiest industrialized countries per se. If it was, China seems to me to be a clear candidate, despite its lack of democratic institutions. Seems to me that the proper place to make this an issue is not on wikipedia but to the respective governments in question. In the end, adding Spain to the G8 is more a political issue than an economic one. Canada Jack (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

CIA figures should be updated according to last CIA report

Eliko (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cia figures should be cancelled!It's a shame!This is a free world encyclopedia or an american encyclopedia?Cia is only a national agency and not trustable for all the world like IMF or WB!

THANKS!

Gl Campi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.237 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. The CIA figures should be removed! The IMF and WB list are the most trustable ones.

Make link to older GDP tables if exists

Would it be possible that (if any exists) there would be some link to older GDP charts? If there are non would it be possible that in the next year this chart wouldn't be ereased and replaced by the new data, but chart wfom this article would be renamed and linked to the next article?212.75.100.130 (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's for your own personal interest, I think I can help you. Use the history button all the way up on the article. With this you can brows to the oldest versions we had here on Wikipedia and all future versions will be available the same way. If you are advocating to create new articles every year like List of countries by GDP (nominal) in 200x, I guess it won't happen. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan and World Bank List

Why is Taiwan not on the World Bank list? Is this ommission an oversight or should here be an explanatory note somewhere? --Paulalexdij (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The three rankings list different items, because the respective sources do so. Just compare the differing lengths to see that Taiwan is by far not the only country to receive a variable treatment. These anomalies are addressed in the second paragraph of the lead. Let me know if you think that's sufficient or whether the explanation there should be refined. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cia lists not credible

Cia list is not credible because it's only a national agency and not a world foundation.A huge difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.194.112 (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook list looks like IMF list with rounding

The CIA World Factbook figures appear to be the same as the IMF's figures only with a little bit of rounding done. The major exception is the European Union numbers between the two lists.

There are more countries on the Factbook list, but if most of its figures are really from the IMF then does that list contribute anything independent?

Eng2008 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot imagine how the CIA is supposed to gather information about the GDPs of all the countries of the world independantly, i.e., without access to external sources.

122.169.94.103 (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, Eng. A quick look at the two lists reveals a few figures on the CIA list which could be rounded figures of the IMF list, but most of the numbers are clearly not rounded. So, what we are seeing could simply be that the CIA and IMF are in close agreement on some figures, and not so on others. Which is to be expected if roughly similar methodology is being employed. Canada Jack (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Figures

When will the 2008 figures be released? In January 2009 or at the end of the fiscal year 2008-09 ? 122.169.94.103 (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

China is number 3

I thought China was past Germany and Japan... When is it predicted that they will pass them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.225.40 (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought India was stronger. Like China on 3rd or second and India on 4th or third. ^83.108.203.182 (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

About China: They are predicted to surpass Germany this year. So, the lists will probably reflect this, when 2008 data will be presented. For that, however, the year has to come to an end first.

About India: They are in deed not as far ahead in this list as you thought. However, they rank much higher (4th) on the List of countries by GDP (PPP), where they just surpassed Germany within the last year. It might be interesting for you to learn about the different concepts underlying this list and the list we are discussing here. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok thanx . 83.108.203.182 (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

China has overtaken Germany long ago. --88.69.193.237 (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

China has overtaken Germany. --88.69.194.183 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

False, China has not overtaken Germany at market prices, just at PPP which is different, but it is expected that this year China will overtake Germany (not if Austria becomes part of the Federation...)

China will overtake Germany if we include Hong Kong and Macau. The economist has predicted that China's GDP will be at 4.8 trillion this year in their annual publication the World in 2009. http://www.economist.com/theworldin/forecasts/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12621587 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.203 (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

These figures are indeed, as of January 2009, inaccurate: [7]. Wikipedia itself even lists this as "news" on the main front page.--Mass147 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that China is overtaking Germany as the third largest economy in GDP (nominal). However, the list shows more than that. It shows data from three institutions for all countries. This article has to ensure that the list as a whole is consistent. That is, all data in each column must refer to the same institution and the same time. We cannot change the data for China only. Just be a little bit patient and wait until IMF, WB, or CIA update their data. Then, I am sure, you will see what you are eager to see. However, you might want to use these references on the China or Germany article. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No. China has overtaken Germany. --88.69.195.5 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[8] ! --88.69.195.5 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

China has overtaken Germany. --在紅龍 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion as to what the function of the page is. It is simply to reflect the rankings as per the various institutions - the WB, the CIA, the IMF. While the press reports that the WB now has China above Germany, the WB lists (and I just checked a few minutes ago) still reflect the figures we have reproduced on the page, with China behind Germany. So those who keep repeating that China is now ahead are missing the point. The published lists do not reflect that, presumably they will be updated in the near future and then we can reflect those figures.

As Tom says, we are not here to presume we can update the lists the sources themselves have not updated. Once they do so, we can do that. The page is for the GDP as determined by the sources, and we consult their lists to do so. It is not the page of published sources' determination of GDP with updates from wikipedia editors. Until such time as the World Bank updates their lists, we have to reflect what they in fact have on their page. Canada Jack (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Officially, China surpass Germany. China's GDP increase is 9% in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you mentally challenged, 68? The lists are updated when the sources update their lists. What here do you not comprehend? China could be #1 in the world, whatever. But if the sources say #4 on their lists, then that is what we have here. The function of the page is to reflect what the sources say, nothing else. We don't update the page every time a press release comes out. Kapeesh? Clearly not, it would seem. Canada Jack (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

@Jack. I wouldn't say so. The IP is probably just over motivated and keen to see China at the position where it (probably) is in January 2009. The fact that the data presented refers to the year 2007, from this POV, is just an annoying detail that should be ignored.

@all the IPs. Please consider the arguments given by Jack and me before. Your stoical repetition of the same line does have any effect other than making this talk page look stupid. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the page "List of countries by GDP (nominal)" will always lag behind by 1 to 2 years because the sources do so. In other words, this is "by design". However, the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_(nominal)_estimates is much closer to the actual situation (it currently lags behind by only a month) and predicts that China will overtake Japan next year, thus becoming number two. (Лъчезар (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

So can someone put the 2009 list from one of the three sources up there if its available? If its not, when does it come out? And can someone please explain me in an easy way what the difference between (PPP) and (GDP) is? And don't call me moderatly retarded just cos I'm an IP lol 83.108.225.137 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete

Nevermind i didint have my glasses on so someone delete his post of mine ChesterTheWorm (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

World Fact Book Data changed!

Someone gotta update the data here.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

style="font-size:85%;"

Why font-size:85% ? I think the normal text size would be more readable, as in List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP). --Anna Lincoln (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is the EU considerd a country?

It's not a country,why is it on the list?

Many reasons...

See the discussion here, and the summary with conclusions here. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Primarily, it came down to the fact that the sources chose to include the EU or eurozone in their "country" tabulations. The CIA, for example, quite clearly includes the EU in their "country" list meaning they, for whatever reason, saw the inclusion as relevant and necessary. No other trade bloc/body is included. Canada Jack (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that the sources included these in their "country tabulations". Only the CIA did that, and their list is not a ranking of countries but rather an information list -- a different purpose --Blue Tie (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Italy...

...BEHIND CANADA? --89.97.21.231 (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Bubu 05-05-09 12:01 CET —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.224.160.136 (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

jjaajjaja ya canda..the last of the last..why canada is in the g8? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.102.250 (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

German-Austrian Unification would keep the third place

The Reunification of Germany and Austria would lead to a Germany of $ 4,250 Trillion, still surpassing China in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.56.101 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And including the German speaking part of Switzerland would lead to over $ 4,600 Trillion, almost as much as Japan...

Then at least there could be a European representative back to the first League. Just for that Reunfication of Germany, Austria and Switzerland is worth to think about. For Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.56.101 (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Reunification of Germany, Austria and the German-speaking part of Switzerland isn't a bad idea, just like reunification of France and the French-speaking part of Belgium, reunification of Netherlands and the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, reunification of Czechoslovakia, reunification of Yugoslavia, reunification of Bulgaria and Macedonia, reunification of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, and reunification of China and Taiwan, in which case, however, the Greater China will still be ahead of the Greater Germany :) Лъчезар (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that just the Russian speaking Eastern part of Ukraine and Belarus should reunify with the Russian Federation as Autonomous Republics or Krais (not Western Ukraine which for centuries has been closer to the Western part of Europe), and that will compensate the Russian lose of population during the last decade and the difference with China. Right now the Russian Federation, with just 142 million people means just 10.6% of the population of the People´s Republic of China. After Reunification, Russia would have about 165 million people and the 6th GDP in the World at market prices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.48.225 (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK but where lies the border between Western and Eastern Ukraine? See [9] (This may be out of the scope of the GDP article) 193.68.23.103 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC) That should be decided by Referendum.

If we include The Netherlands and Flanders, plus Austria and Switzerland as länder that new Germany would have the second GDP in the World: $ 5,4 billion, surpassing both Japan and China. So Europe will have an important representation among the World Powers.

If you add Netherlands and Flanders, why not also add the entire Scandinavia to Germany? :) Лъчезар (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC) First, because Scandinavia was not part of the Holy Roman Germanic Empire. Second, because if it is supposed to be a democratic Federation to get a positive vote in a Referendum is much more difficult, the same as in Western Ukraine to become part of the Russian Federation.

The Holy Roman Empire belongs to the distant past, as the Great Bulgaria of Simeon I of Bulgaria. Let's live in the present. Лъчезар (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the present and the future if we want Europe to have a representative among the World Powers. If the European Union fails to become a nation state then the only alternative for Western Europe will be a democratic German Federation including Austria, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Flanders as länder. The situation today is not like half a century ago. Now European nations are really small, just compare Germany´s 82 million people with Mexico´s 110 million or Brazil´s 190 million, or the U.S.´s 305 million people. So I don´t have any doubt that a new unified German Federation is inevitable.

OK but what about France, Italy, Spain, Portugal? They speak Roman languages so their eventual union can be a new Roman empire :) Лъчезар (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to think about how to articulate an space, how to structurate a territory of a nation. I am from Spain and a European federalist: the European Peninsula, like the Indian Peninsula has a diversity of languages and states of different size. That could be the Hub of the World economy with a GDP larger than the American...but at present Europe is just an American Protectorate. If it fails what would be the alternative? Italy, Spain and France having similar size cannot articulate an space among three as there would be three big heads (that is diluted in a European Union with multiple heads none of them relevant enough: Germany just has 12% of the E.U. population, similar to Uttar Pradesh in the Indian Union) Also, France and Italy are unitary nations and to structurate the territory you would need to divide both as Spain has done with 17 autonomous regions.

But the case of Germany is different: There is already an industrial and demographic Core built during the XIX Century around what used to be Prussia (which doesn´t exist anymore)forming a Federation of Lánder (states) so it is an OPEN construction as was demonstrated with the unification of the DDR, a nation much more different after decades of Communism from the FDR than Austria: 82 million people in 16 states (Bundesländer), one of them (North-Rhine-Westphalia) with a population of 18 million people, more than The Netherlands. Curiously part of North Rhine-Westphalia has a native dialect which is closer to Dutch than to conventional German while part of the North of The Netherlands speak a dialect which is closer to Low German than to Dutch. And curiously too Bavaria and Austria speak in the same German dialect...The Netherlands and Austria are already member states of the Schengen Treaty and the Common Currency so from many points of view they are closer to Western German ländern than the former DDR Eastern länder were. So Austria, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Flanders could become easily states (ländern) of the Federation. For Swtizerland it would be more difficult as their battered financial industry depends on others malaises but probably the German speaking population would approve it in a Referendum. So you have an industrial and demographic Hub of 120 million people and a GDP of $5.4 Trillion, a well articulated space of 20 Länder, a solid structure with a high income of $45,000 (at current prices) But I am concerned that given the low birthdate of Germany that wouldn´t be enough compared to a growing China of 1,336 million people and a growing America of 305 million people (which probably will integrate the Canadian provinces as states sooner or later) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.36.240 (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts, thank you! About Canada and the Sates: Who will integrate whom, we may see soon :) Лъчезар (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is important the fact that over 65% of Dutch speak German already...and curiously in America and the UK they call the people of The Netherlands "Dutch", which means...German in German language, haha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.36.240 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting! Indeed, "Dutch" is very similar to "Deutsch" and may be just an older or modified form of this word. Лъчезар (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But if Belgium and Switzerland are split, France deserves their French-speaking parts, and Italy - the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland :) Лъчезар (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Agreed. In fact, Wallonia becoming a French province is something discussed time ago.

Mexico and Central America

If Central America integrated in Mexico as states the United Mexican States would surpass India and approach Brazil. That would be great for Spanish speaking Latinamerica now that Mexico will become a member state of the G-16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.72.164 (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the map of Europe has changed so much for the last 20 years, the map of North America may change too - see Igor Panarin. Лъчезар (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC) I ve seen the map already and read about it in russiatoday, but I think just New Mexico, Western Texas and Southern California will join Mexico as in that part of the U.S. there is an ethnic Mexican majority and were Mexican states just over a century ago.

Yeah, that article was roundly laughed at by the world community, because it so misunderstands the area and people. In fact, I'm laughing at it right now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy laughing while watching your Minnesota's annexation as a Canadian province :) Лъчезар (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think we're letting US states join Canada, you're the one that's laughing ;) 68.148.123.76 (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

economy

Remember california is economy is no. 9 in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.159.252 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IMF

When will the IMF release it's GDP figures for 2008? In May perhaps? Anyway im glad to see that China has replaced Germany as the worlds third largest economy. Propably it will overtake Japan this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarikilu1985 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

China could overtake Japan not this year but next year. As to the USA, the comparison would be incorrect since the structure of the GDP in the USA (agriculture 0.9%, industry 20.6%, services 78.5%) is very different from that in China (agriculture 11.3%, industry 48.6%, services 40.1%). Лъчезар (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese economy declined sharply in 2008, ecspessially in the last quarter when GDP shrank by 12,1%. Some experts believe that China may already have overtaken Japans second place. Well, we will get the answer in April or May when IMF releases it's 2008 figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarikilu1985 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The CIA data for 2008 is: Japan 4,844,000, China 4,222,000. In order for China to overtake Japan this year, given the aimed increase of China's 2009 GDP of 8-9%, the Japan's 2009 GDP must decrease by at least 5-6%. I admit that this could indeed happen. Лъчезар (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The CIA data is based on the IMFs estimates made in October last year, and they are outdated. These estimates didn't take into account that China's GDP actually grew by 13% in 2007, up from the previous estimate of 11,9%. This adjustment meant that the Chinese economy reached 3,5 trillion dollar at the end of 2007. The economy slowed sharply in 2008, but it still managed to grow by 9%, reaching an estimated 4,42 trillion dollar at the end of 2008. The October estimates also predicted that the Japanese economy would grow by 0,7% to reach 4,8 trillion dollar, but we know now that they didn't grow at all last year. The only question which remains now, is just how much Japan's economy actually declined for the whole year of 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarikilu1985 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I see now! Then their GDPs must be almost equal. But why does the IMF need so much time to update this statistics? Лъчезар (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The IMF needs to gather all their statistics from all the member countries respective national statistical agencies. I suppose some of these agencies needs more time than others to collect their economic data. For example China and the US usually releases their GDP figures much earlier than Germany, France or Canada, actually almost a month earlier. Don't ask me why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarikilu1985 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

IMFs April 2009 Edition of the WEO Database will be released on April 22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.177.82 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The April 2009 World Economic Outlook predicts China will be a larger (nominal, market exchange rate, US$) economy than Japan in 2010. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated info

This site has more recent results. http:// ww.economywatch.com/economies-in-top/ --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the CIA from 2008 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

But that is GDP at PPP (Purchasing Power Parity), not at Market (nominal) prices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.151.211 (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The third paragraph states that Iraq is not on the 2008 IMF list. However, Iraq is listed as number 59 on the 2008 IMF list. Iraq is not on the 2007 World Bank list. (araffals 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Araffals (talk • contribs)

Semi-protection request

Please protect this article from unregistered (IP) user access. The level of "IP-vandalism" has recently increased sharply. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Лъчезар (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

World Economic Outlook

Why does WEO redirect here?DOR (HK) (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct data about South Korea (vandalism)

There has been some vandalism in this site. According to the CIA Factbook S.Korea is in the 15th place far below. Somebody has vandalised the chart today.--88.26.57.166 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

CIA list

The CIA and World bank lists are obviously wrong,Brazil is way up and China seems to be missing from them.Who changed it? Fireaxe888 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Can someone please update the list: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf 208.79.239.160 (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Alliances

Should other alliances be listed since the EU is listed? Maybe NAFTA. NATO. Heck, we could do western hemisphere, trade wind countries, countries that have the most English speakers, countries that border each other and countries that start with A? There really is no reason to have a trade alliance/organization listed with actual countries other than it makes some people feel better. The question is, where do we draw the line? From my understanding, all the countries in the EU send individual representatives to the UN and also to the Olympic games. They are individual sovereign entities. Not a singular country. While it does offer a reference point for the continent, it does not belong where it is currently placed. Maybe it would be a good project to list GDP by continent or trade organization? Anyway, I have removed the EU from the tables as it does not belong with country data unless we were to widen the overall scope (i.e. not list by country, but by geographic region/organization/alliance.) Neutralis (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. See the talk archive for the consensus and reasoning behind the inclusion of the EU. Poliphile (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. Please look at the logic applied in the above post. I have read the reasoning concerning the EU and it does not meet the merit of inclusion. The EU is not a country. If we want to include allied bodies in the table, we should expand it greatly and I am willing to do that. However, at this time the EU is still not a country nor does it have a fiscal body that aggregates wealth. Neutralis (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: This is a list of COUNTRIES by GDP. Neutralis (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE 2: This is my attempt at being Bold. The previous discourse is stagnant and anyone that looks at this article from an outside perspective knows the EU is not a country that should be listed on a list of countries by GDP. There is lots of flutter but when we get down to the data, it is a list of country GDP data. It should remain as such, untouched by political doctrine or motive. Neutralis (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has already been reached; you can't decide to change it because you don’t agree with it. Please read the previous discussions on the talk page. Zarcadia (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate that there has been vigorous discussion on this issue. You can't come to a consensus on something that is factually incorrect. The EU is not a country. This is a list of countries by GDP. Even the opening paragraph says, "This article includes a list of countries of the world sorted by their gross domestic product (GDP)." Neutralis (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

European Union is not a country

The EU is not a country and only provides an arbitrary reference point that is superfluous being the world data is included. If we were to include the EU, we could easily cherry pick other non-nation organizational bodies and add them to the list, but in effect that would further move from the core of the article which is, "List of Countries by GDP." While the EU is an important political body, it does not meet the criteria for list of inclusion on a list of countries, being it is not one. Neutralis (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We've had this discussion. There is nothing "arbitrary" about including the EU on the list, as the sources list the European Union/Eurozone as a distinct entity even when the lists say "list of countries." Might try reading the intro and checking the sources. The CIA, for example, doesn't list NAFTA or the EFTA, so there is no "cherrypicking" here. They do list the EU. If this is an issue for you, you might try lodging a complaint with the CIA. In the end, it fits the criterion as, presumably owing to its sui generis status, the sources choose to list it. Canada Jack (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the sources. This is just simple logic. The EU is not a country and should not be included in the context of list of countries in this wikipedia article. If you are going to include the EU, then the individual countries that make up the EU that are on the list should be removed (even though that is defeating the point of a country list by GDP in the first place.) In the end, you can't have it both ways and keep consistency in the article. When someone looks for a list of countries, they expect to see a list of countries. Throwing an organizational body on to the list for "pride" or whatever reason it is there does not change the fact that it does not belong. If I had a list of population by state (US) and then threw New England on the list, it wouldn't belong as it is not a state but rather a region. The same logic applies here. While the EU is a monetary body bound by treaty, it does not in any way fulfill the definition of a country in the traditional sense (nor does it have individual representatives to the UN, Olympics et al.) Neutralis (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not continue to edit war. I see that you've filed an RFC and I welcome that step. But DO NOT make further edits until you've obtained consensus. So far you are the only one to suggest removing the EU from the list. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's how wikipedia works, since you've twice now removed information which was the result of a long debate and from which a consensus was reached. Number One: your particular views on what qualifies for inclusion on a list of countries is not the crucial criterion here - the crucial criterion is whether those who make the lists decide to include the data. Which is why we also include data Hong Kong, Jersey and other non-country entities. Because those who made the lists chose to include that data. Even when their lists say "countries," non-country entities are included when they include it. That is the operating premise behind listing the data. Number Two: This is not just my particular view on what should be on the page, as said previously, we've had this debate and the consensus was to reproduce the data as found on the originating lists. So to come in here and declare the page to be "wrong" and make substantial changes without first gaining consensus is, well, not the way things work around here.

Throwing an organizational body on to the list for "pride" or whatever reason it is there does not change the fact that it does not belong. If I had a list of population by state (US) and then threw New England on the list, it wouldn't belong as it is not a state but rather a region. The same logic applies here.

Sounds like the one who is operating from "pride" is you, neutralis, seeking to omit the largest economy in the world for what seems to be a goal to see the United States at number one. But it already is at number one, since the EU/EZ is not numbered. What "fact" is not changed is that the EU is included on lists some of which are called "country" lists. States? They aren't listed, so to apply your reductio ad absurdum argument doesn't work since the sources lack the data. I have speculated before that since the EU is a sui generis entity, the sources themselves see it warrants inclusion as though not a country, it is also not simply a regional trade bloc. And since the EU acts like a nation in many important economic respects - a common currency for most of the bloc, a body-wide trade rules regulator etc. - its inclusion was deemed relevant by those making the lists. Canada Jack (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not for you to presuppose my goals or declare I have an agenda, nor to tell me how wikipedia works...

Anyway, the EU might very well be the largest economy in the world, but it isn't the largest economy in the world on a list by country, because it is not a country. If there was a list of organizational bodies (which the EU is stated as in its main wikipedia article) it would be fine to put the EU on the top of that list.

As for the makeup of the list, it is not for wikipedia to follow the outline documents from whence it derives its data as wikipedia exists for an entirely different purpose. The argument, "The CIA does it this way and thus Wikipedia must follow that mold" does not at all run current to the base operating procedure in this community. We create an article and source the article to supporting documents. We do not take supporting documents and write an article with its vision as a template.

On your last note, while the EU may act like a country in many respects, it is not a country.

In conclusion, this is a straightforward issue that should not be a subject of contention or long debate. This is a list of countries and the EU is not a country. It is that simple. There is no reason for its inclusion. If we want a list with the EU on it, I'd be more than happy to create a wikipedia article, "List of Organizational Bodies by GDP" and stick it right at the top along with NAFTA. Neutralis (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not for you to presuppose my goals or declare I have an agenda, nor to tell me how wikipedia works...

Since you did precisely that - presuppose why the EU was included (and not Hong Kong etc) - one wonders why you doth complain so loudly... As for how wikipedia works, since a) you repeatedly removed content without discussion and b) waded into a discussion for which consensus has previously been reached, it seems you have, in your haste, forgotten how things are normally done around here.

But enough of this snide back and forth. Your points on the status of the EU are good points - and were a large part of the discussion previously held. No one now or then suggests the EU is or was or will be (well maybe) a "country." The discussion turned on whether to include data which seemed to fall outside of the article's definition which was included on the source pages. Since the sources saw fit to include the data, it was decided we should so, with several caveats - that this was mentioned within the introduction and the non-country entities not be ranked.

The argument, "The CIA does it this way and thus Wikipedia must follow that mold" does not at all run current to the base operating procedure in this community. We create an article and source the article to supporting documents. We do not take supporting documents and write an article with its vision as a template.

But its not just the CIA, and this you don't seem to appreciate. Twenty years ago, this would not have been an issue, as the sources wouldn't have made the separate listing. But things have changed, and the EU is now almost universally listed as an entity. If not a country, then often listed aside countries for the purposes of comparison. What I said before about this stands: To remain relevant, wikipedia should reflect the evolving understanding of issues out there and to reflect the information which the sources choose to deem as relevant. It would seem that for a number of reasons, comparisons with the EU are seen as relevant. So, while certain nationalist hackles are raised (on both sides) whether one side seeks to be number one or not, the salient point is the primary sources here see the comparison as important and relevant, quite outside the "trivia" of listing various trading blocs. So, to stick too closely to a dictionary definition as if this overrides any question of relevancy, is to embrace the forest but not the trees.

In conclusion, this is a straightforward issue that should not be a subject of contention or long debate. This is a list of countries and the EU is not a country. It is that simple. There is no reason for its inclusion.

You are right, but the debate has been held, and consensus has already been reached. And that consensus was to include the EU, with the proviso that an intro would mention that non-national entities were included and those entities would not be ranked but placed within the tables by GDP. So, unless others want to re-open the issue, that would be the last word on this issue. Canada Jack (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice what you are saying? The information is wrong, but as it was (informally) decided it must remain as is. And the editors deliberately left out of the lists other country groups mentioned in the sources, for what reason? Weeweew (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As a rule, I agree with Neutralis. The European Union is not a sovereign state and does not meet any other reasonable definition of the word "country". It should not, generally speaking, be assumed that the European Union belongs on any list "of countries" on Wikipedia without good and specific reasons for inclusion. Under no circumstances should it be implied that the European Union is a sovereign state unless such assertion can be demonstrated using a reliable source (such as an EU treaty) - I'm not accusing anyone of this, just stating it in general terms.

But these are single-source lists. It would be strange for us to cite this as the list by the World Bank, or by the IMF, and then exclude one of the entities listed by the World Bank/IMF. It's far easier for all concerned when single-source lists use their sources to determine their inclusion criteria.

So, while generally my view is that the EU and eurozone do not belong on lists of countries, I don't think we should exclude them when we're explicitly reproducing a list from a source that includes them. Pfainuk talk 20:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out to everybody participating in this discussion the fact that of the three sources referenced in this article, Only CIA clearly mentions EU along with "regular" countries.

It seems the IMF data in this article is made up of the combination of two different listings, this one and this one. Only the first one is a proper country list, while the second one is a list of country groups, where the editors of this article considered appropriate to deliberately deselect all country groups but World and European Union, the only ones considered by them worth mentioning, despite the fact the original source considered appropriate to include the other ones. Then, they proceeded to merge the two lists to suit their own personal preference, creating this new definition for the word country, found only in Wikipedia.

Then, the editors kept the same policy for the World Bank reference, choosing to pick European Area from a different section of the table, where some country groups are represented, and again, contrary to the source, decided the only country groups worth mentioning are World and European Area, again, deliberately letting out other country groups considered relevant by the original authors of the reference.

I strongly recommend you to not believe me and verify this yourself. The fact the correct information can be found in the sources is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not just a mere link aggregator, and the way the information is presented in the article is misleading. Do you really believe a child researching this article for schoolwork is going to check the references? The introduction tries to justify this aberration by saying "the sources told me so", but using this criteria the sources also mention South Asia and Middle income country groups. Displaying prominently European Union alone will leave in such a child the impression EU is a country, and this is also no excuse to edit other countries from the list, because EU and World (the last one partially justifiable as a sum of the elements) are the only elements evidently handpicked and misplaced. Weeweew (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The World Bank list lists one and only one aggregate economic group, Weewee. And that single group is the Euro Area (not "European Area", whatever that is). The EFTA, NAFTA, the South American blocs, the Asian blocs ARE NOT MENTIONED. ALL the other groups are regions, not economic associations. Further, the CIA, under the list of "countries," lists The European Union.

The information is NOT "misleading" as the intro quite clearly states: Several economies which are not considered to be countries (world, EU, and some dependent territories) are included in the list because they appear in the sources. And, in case anyone misses it, ALL lists have as #1, the United States of America. The EU/EZ are not ranked. Are children also going to conclude The World is a country? By your logic, they would. But not by the logic of any kid I know. Further, since you seem to be on an anti-EU warpath, should we not exclude Hong Kong as well? It is not a country either, but yet it resides on all three lists as well. Clearly, the sources themselves choose not to be as stringent on their definition of "country" as you insist we should be.

If this debate was being held 200 years ago, I'd have no doubt that Brits would be arguing that the USA should be listed by individual States as the USA is an "aggregate" of States. But, the same argument holds then as now: What those who compile the lists see as a relevant compilation should be what we list, not some arbritrary rule (which is used to exclude what world-wode is seen as a bona fide, though sui generis, economic entity) designed tro exclude relevant comparisons.

That same shoolchild, if seeing the USA so far ahead, would wonder why, increasingly, the EU calls the economic shots and demands concessions, collectively, from places like China, and why the euro is the second most-important currency on the planet if the data was excluded. The listings as reproduced here give that schoolchild a clearer idea why, which is probably why the listmakers list it. Canada Jack (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Canada Jack, it is not possible we are talking about the same document. I'm referring to this one. I have searched it and there are only two matches for "euro": "Europe & Central Asia" and "Euro area". Euro area is mentioned, like the other artificial country groupings found there and omitted here, just as a reference. You are correct, there are no South American or Asian Blocks mentioned, but Euro area is not the same as European Union, and by no means is a country, you said yourself, it is an economic association. And as I already mentioned, the CIA is the only one listing European Union along with countries, and I believe it was also already mentioned in this discussion you cannot combine two different sources (CIA and WB in this case) to make your conclusions, much less to pretend that the reference to Euro area equals to European Union, and that both are a country. Also, you have no right to claim I'm in a anti-EU warpath, the same way nobody has the right to claim you are in a anti-US warpath. The sole non-stringent source, as you call it, possibly claiming EU to be a country is CIA, itself a reason to exclude it as unreliable. IMF has a list of countries which excludes EU, WB list does not claim to be a list of countries, the text at the bottom only reads "economies", very different from country. I couldn't care less about US/EU, I'm only frustrated to see Wikipedia becoming increasingly useless, as articles age and are "adopted" by people strongly misconceived and strongly stubborn.

Why does the authors/editors of the article considered it to be appropriate to search for EU/EZ outside the main reference (in case of IMF) or the main section of the table (in case of WB), and in both cases deliberately exclude other country groups found at the originals? The mentioned dependent territories were included alongside countries in the source, and in case this is a mistake, it is not for Wikipedia to fix this information, otherwise it would be original research. Obviously no one is going to think World is a country, the same cannot be assumed of European Union, which has many government structures similar to a country, and which is very likely to become one in the future. I'm complaining about someone making great leaps of logic to pick information from different locations to support the theory EU already belongs to this article.

I'm not British, this is 2009 and I see no point in your argument. Just to mention an example, US has a single army, which can be mobilized as a single entity, regardless of the State soldiers originally belong to. The only similar thing EU has by now is NATO, which you may know is composed by non-EU countries also, and with individualized armies for each country. EU has an enormous and crescent political and economic strength, but this does not change the fact it is not a country, which is what this article refers to.

That schoolchild may wonder a lot of things, for instance, why does there are many countries which cannot call the shots and still are considered countries, why there are many associations which can call the shots in many instances (NATO,WTO) even not being a country, why not all EU countries adopt the same currency, and why some non-EU do so, who knows? Power itself doesn't determine what a country is, general consensus does, and EU is being considered a country only here. The lists reproduced here are exhibiting manipulated information, so what clear idea can come from this? Why isn't there a "See Also" link for "Organizations who are calling the shots", with NATO, WTO, EU and even, in some instances, UN? Weeweew (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Weeweew: Clearly, you've not looked too closely at the pages in question. The WB lists the euro area. On the wikipedia page, we have, under the WB listings, the euro zone. This is one and the same entity, something I suspect you may not be aware of, or are confused about, as you used the phrase "European Area" earlier. So, your complaints about it not being the European Union are moot as the list has it as "euro zone," which is precisely what is listed on thr WB list. And the euro zone is the only distinct entity on that table. It is no way an "artificial country grouping" as the zone is specifically defined, and, indeed, there is an article on this entity, unlike the others on the page.

So, we have the CIA and the WB specifically listing, to the exclusion of all other aggregate entities, the European Union and the euro zone. The IMF also lists it, though not as exclusively. And, let's be clear here, the CIA doesn't "define" the EU as a country, it states quite plainly that, though nominally a list of countries by GDP, there are non-country entities on the list. IOW, the CIA, and the WB, while saying "country" clearly don't limit the lists to countries. Hong Kong has NEVER been considered a country but, routinely, "country" listings on this and other subjects, routinely list it, without hand-wringing from pedantic critics.

I couldn't care less about US/EU, I'm only frustrated to see Wikipedia becoming increasingly useless, as articles age and are "adopted" by people strongly misconceived and strongly stubborn. I find that an extremely odd statement. How does including the EU make the page "useless"? I'd say having the info makes it very useful - and relevant. If this was a list of countries, period, you've have a point. But its a list of economies, ranked by country, with some data included seen as relevant or in demand by the sources. It's EXTREMELY relevant, given the EU's single bloc, the use of the euro, to have some comparative measure of its economy with other economies. The EU (not Germany or France), enter into trade negotiations with other regions and countries (Canada and the EU are negotiating, for example), and its regulatory structure is as influential as America's.

Why does the authors/editors of the article considered it to be appropriate to search for EU/EZ outside the main reference (in case of IMF) or the main section of the table (in case of WB), and in both cases deliberately exclude other country groups found at the originals? There may be an argument for that in the case of the IMF, but, as I said above, the euro area is the only economic entity listed on the WB page. No other regional entities are listed.

US has a single army, which can be mobilized as a single entity, regardless of the State soldiers originally belong to You are missing the point. No one claims that the EU is a country. However, it is sui generis and while not a country, it is also not simply a trade bloc. Trade blocs generally don't have a parliament and a president. The EU does. As I have reiterated, the sources choose to list it, perhaps for the reason of sui generis, so should we. If the argument is "omit non-countries," then, logically, we'd have to second-guess the sources and start omitting places like Hong Kong.

Why isn't there a "See Also" link for "Organizations who are calling the shots", with NATO, WTO, EU and even, in some instances, UN? Because they aren't on the lists. You seem to miss the point of why I mentioned that - I am simply offering an possible rationale for the SOURCES to have listed the EU/EZ and not other entities. I would speculate that NATO, the UN etc lack the economic cohesion and economic clout of the EU. Why not ask the sources? Canada Jack (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Canada Jack, it seems clear to me both of us strongly believe our opinion on this subject is correct, and that other one's arguments are too weak to change our own position. Unfortunately, I don't have time to keep up with this discussion, so I can only recommend people reading this to read all positions expressed in this page, from both sides, check the sources and reach their own conclusions. Does EU belong to this article, called "List of countries by GDP (nominal)? In an informal poll, there was no consensus, so it seems the information was to be left as it already was (including EU), and this does not necessarily implies this is right (or wrong). Also, Tomeasy suggested to carry to sister articles the position of this one, probably just to keep consistence, not because he is a supporter of this position, but this does not reflect the above mentioned convention of leaving them as they already are. So, I regret to inform I will be forced to leave the discussion in its current state, with my position being to exclude EU from the listings, based on the fact EU is not a country and the reasons given to include it here are debatable, and I will not be able to change this position to reflect new developments in argumentation after the signature date. Weeweew (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. The EU is essentially a kind of economic state. If the EU does not

belong on the lists, then "World" doesn't either, as it's the root economic state, comprising everything. Nor would any other non-national, non-sovereign, or non-state entities either. These lists should mirror the list from each of the three sources, since it's their list. Country does not always or necessarily mean exactly the same as sovereign state, or some of the other legal or international law definitions. It's like the term "terrorism" in that we have no one single universal definition. And there are other ambiguities of inclusion in these lists. For example, what about Ireland—the whole island—not just the Republic of Ireland? What about the members of the British Commonwealth, NATO, NAFTA, Organization of American States, the US territories, and other organizational, economic, regional, geopolitical, ethnic, or continental groupings. Inclusion criteria by the sources are apparently not based on extremely well and totally agreed on definitions, and—as in most issues—there are shades of grey and differences. Wikipedia can't make those inclusion decisions without doing original research or synthesis. The reporting organizations have made them. Note: Came here via RfC. Bottom line: Mirror the lists from the three sources, as they are, which includes the EU. — Becksguy (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Removal. The EU isn't an economic state. It doesn't even have the same currency. --67.8.93.31 (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Include in the same way our sources include the EU/eurozone. BTW, this question was dealt with at length last year in an informal mediation. None of the arguments here appear new to me. Tomeasy _{T C} 01:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Removal. Wikipedia is making a joke of itself trying to redefine reality by vote. The EU is not a country, regardless of the fact the article sources mention it in their own lists. This article is not named IMF, World Bank, or CIA List of countries by GDP (nominal), and the fact the article sources mention EU/EZ will not change the fact EU is not considered a country by anyone. If we take a list of, let's say, Latin American countries by GDP, and it mentions OECD GDP for comparison, will this make OECD into a Latin American country? Is there any rule in Wikipedia stating that sources must be quoted entirely, without any edition for consistency with the articlethey are used in? I would go even further, and suggest to remove World from the figures, because as it is, we can not be sure about the intended meaning. Does it mean "totals" for these lists? The introduction even mentions there are some countries excluded, so, are these included in "World"? If not, the meaning of "world" in these lists is questionable, too. Weeweew (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• keep Discussed at length before, agreement to keep EU at the appropriate position but without rank number was reached. No new arguments, no reason to reconsider. Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. This was already discussed, nothing has changed to alter the issue. To extend the "exclude" logic, then we'd have to exclude one entity almost universally included for far longer than the EU has existed: Hong Kong. Btw, one person notes that the EU lacks a common single currency. Well, so did the United States for a good portion of its existence. Canada Jack (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Removal. I'm a little late to the party as I'd given up on the article. This looks like a cut and dry majority decision based on editor interest(s) rather than a careful assessment of the causation for the previous inclusion decision. That aside, the EU is not a county and we all know it. Nor is it a fair marker as it, like many other treaty bound organizations could be included as such (include one, include them all?) Actually, that goes against the basis of the article and as I've said from the beginning, I think a fair compromise would be to have a list of organizational bodies by GDP in a complimentary article.

Speaking of compromised, this article is, by what I feel is politicking. I hope through my arguments it is clearly dictated that I value the content of the article scientifically and by the rule of word. List of countries by GDP - that is the title. If there was one valid source that stated the EU was a country, I'd be more than happy to retrograde my previously held stance. Rather, we have statements such as, "The EU is like a country."

Winter is like summer in many respects. The sun is still in the sky. The moon continues its daily voyage around the earth. Trees and mountains still dot the horizon as the ocean tide ebbs and flows. That doesn't mean I'm going to run outside today in a speedo, nor does it mean winter is summer. Neutralis (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The heading "of Countries" should probably be "of Economies" Kormie (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I second this idea. I'll make the change. If we are going to include "Economies" rather than countries, we need a better title definition. I look forward to the debate (although as stated above, would prefer two articles, one with countries and one with "economies" or "organizational bodies." Neutralis (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Move complete. Before I get into the labor intensive part of renumbering, I'll give a few hours for debate. Although I think this is a great compromise. Neutralis (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Inclusion and oppose renaming to economies. Renaming to economies will just confuse everything, bring into question why the EU doesn't have a rank and why each of the member nations are included etc. Including the EU in the list has been argued over viciously before, and I agree entirely with it being there. I really hate this particular argument because it's true, the EU is not a country. But that doesn't mean that its inclusion in this list isn't useful as a comparison to other countries, just as it is useful to include the World total. It is obvious to anyone that spends more than a millisecond looking at the list and the intro that the EU is not a country, so the opportunity for confusion due to this extra information seems very slim. So the choices, in my view, are to make the article less useful by removing the EU and all the other "non countries" in the list (the world and various dependencies etc) or to say that such pedantry is not an improvement to the article and leave it how it is. TastyCakes (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Inclusion and oppose renaming to economies. The EU is not a country but it is useful to include the EU (and the Euro area) with lists of countries, and it would not be helpful to rename the article. Other organizations obviously also think so. I would support inclusion of an explicit footnote explaining the situation (wasn't there such a note, previously?); this could echo the statement in the CIA Factbook, which includes the EU in the Country Profiles:

"Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded. Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook. However, because of the EU's special status, this description is placed after the regular country entries."

--Boson (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

This article contains Original Research in the form of adding Eurozone to list #2 and by incorporating separate, different non-country lists (alternative source) in list #1.

In addition, I would point out that not only is the EU or Eurozone not a country, including it is biased in that other joint economic unions or trading areas are excluded.

EU and European should ONLY be included when the original source has them. Otherwise it is Original Research. If the original source has them they should NOT be excluded. This means that it may be appropriate to include it in the third list, but only in the third list. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The source for list number one says this on the "country" list: On this site, the term "country" does not in all cases refer to a territorial entity that is a state as understood by international law and practice. As used here, the term also covers some territorial entities that are not states. The IMF has two lists here, one with a list of "countries," which it notes is not limited to countries, and the second which has a grand total of two entities on it - the World and the EU.

The source for list two lists countries, and non-country entities such as Hong Kong, the World, some regions and a single specific entity - the euro area.

The source for list three, under the column "country," lists non-country entities such as Hong Kong and... The European Union.

There is no "Original Research" here as the ONLY entities which are listed here are the ones which appear on the respective lists. Indeed, we have simply copied what the lists choose to list. You might have an argument for list number 1, but then we'd also have to excise the figures for "World" which, you'd agree, is a useful figure to have. As I've said before, it seems clear that the various bodies choose to see the publication of EU/EZ figures as warranted and relevant. Therefore, so should we. Canada Jack (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the source for list #1, I do not see the European Union in the list of countries. I have said that if the source does not include it in the list, neither should the article. If the source does include it, so should the article.

The second list is a compilation of TWO DIFFERENT lists. Thus this is synthesis. Let's look at the definition of synthesis:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Two different lists -- even from the same reliable source -- is two different lists. The reason that it is two different lists in the original source is that the second list is NOT a list of countries. To include the second list in a list of countries is "a synthesis of published material that advances a new position and that constitutes original research".

Only the CIA list should include the EU, because it is the ONLY one that includes that in the original source. However, the CIA list should be presented in alphabetical order -- to preserve its intent, which was not to compare ranks but to research by geographic unit.

--Blue Tie (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The lists are from the SAME source in case one, and is not "combine[d] material from multiple sources." Seems you have not carefully checked the sources here, I urge you to do so. As I said, if we are to omit the EU, then, logically, we should also omit the World. The source saw it relevant to note two additional GDP figures - for the world, for the EU. Therefore, so should we. The question one should ask is: why did the source bother to list the world and EU GDP figures, and only the world and EU figures? It seems because they thought it relevant to do so. Therefore, so should we. It's not as if we went searching to find how to include the EU here, the source supplied the numbers.

The second list includes, unnumbered, the figures for the world and for the eurozone. But it's on a single list. Not sure how one can say there are two lists there. If this wasn't so, why are notes for subscripts for France and others found under the table?

As for your suggestion about reproducing the CIA list alphabetically, what "intent" are we talking about here which needs preservation? The "intent" to display countries in an alphabetical sequence? Or the "intent" to display the GDP of these countries? Surely the CIA had no "intent" to list for the world's benefit a definitive alphabetic ranking of world economies. It's not as if there is a breathless wait each year to see of the CIA still considers Fiji to be alphabetically in front of Finland... Canada Jack (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious, and so much to the point. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious is your attempt to discredit Blue Tie's opinion this way. The case for including European Union in the World Bank listing is evidently made up by combining this and this, only the first one being a country list. Why did the editor decided EU country group is so worth mentioning it has to be picked from another list, and why the other country groups are not? It could be justified to search for another source to include "World", as it could be seen as the sum of the entire list, and and it is a common feature of value listings to include the totals. But to make the effort to research a separate listing "Country Groups (aggregated data)" to include the misplaced information in a list of countries, is a very different thing. Weeweew (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Despite efforts to hide behind pretensions of academic propriety it’s clear to any sentient being that those who don’t like having the EU included in these lists are American supremacists’ who can’t handle the reality of the EU as unique ‘state-like’ entity. Wikipedia is supposed to be an information source for the purpose of providing relevant information, not stroking jingoistic egos. The EU is totally unique because it’s far more than just an organisation with a narrow remit, such NAFTA, NATO etc. The EU has unprecedented levels of integration concerning social law, open internal borders, common passports and a great many other elements that are only to be found elsewhere in the World within traditional single nation organisations. Furthermore, this process of union is developing exponentially; the recent ratification of the Lisbon Treaty being significant. Today, the 19th November 2009, the EU has created its first full term President and Cabinet, ending the previous six monthly cyclical presidency system, with authority to represent all its member states in a way far more similar to the way the President of the USA functions than as a mere chairperson of a trade or mutual defence organisation. Indeed, the Lisbon Treaty finally puts an end to any argument as to whether or not the EU should be represented in this article. Additionally those who continue to argue against this inclusion are now clearly revealed as nothing more than US patriotic spoilers.81.107.64.19 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no American supremacist, I'm not even American or European, and my position is EU does not belong to these lists, and Wikipedia is not responsible for making it into a country, EU itself is. The day EU ceases to be an alliance of countries, regardless of how integrated these are, and becomes a single country, it will belong here, and all former EU countries, will not. Weeweew (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Population

I am not going to edit the page, I'll that for others more involved. I just wanted to suggest that population figures be included in the GDP chart. Better yet would be GDP divided by the number of people. So for instance if you looked at the chart now, you might reach the conclusion that China and Japan have similar economic production, but China's GDP per person is much much lower than Japan's. 97.91.175.129 (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

GDP per capita is linked to at the bottom of the page. We have several pages dealing with various permutations of GDP, GNP, PPP, nominal, per capita etc.... VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does the list exclude .....

Vatican city, which is known to be rich...???--222.64.18.96 (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a microstate which does not have all the characteristics of a state. For example, Vatican City has no inborn population, and much of its workers reside outside in Rome. Therefore its GDP per capita figure would be misleading--disproportionately high. Anna Lincoln 08:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with my IMF update?

I can't understand how people come here and without notifying anything they revert a page. I went onto the IMF website and found the last report and estimates of the 184 members of the International Monetary Fund as I included in this source. So I don't understand why people reverted everything I did. I took the numbers from the IMF website. I'm not making anything up. I spend over 2 hours updating this page and is very rude to simply delete it without at least explaining me why. However I edited it again because those are actual numbers. Thanks. 201.248.70.93 (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I can tell you are frustrated about making spending so much times making what you thought were constructive edits. Unfortunately the figures you "updated" are only projected figures. Actual 2009 estimates will be released in April 2010. You are welcome to update the other pages with the most up-to-date 2008 figures. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Has to be updated

If anyone has read the news, they'll know that the Italian economy has overtaken the British one.--Theologiae (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It was just a blip caused by the sudden and short lived drop in the exchange rate between the Euro and the Pound. For a moment the Pound was worth just 1.06 Euros but has now reverted back to a more realistic rate of 1.10 to 1.12. UK is now just ahead of Italy again. The current reccession has hit the UK harder than the Euro zone. Just before the crises the UK was just ahead of France; it will be intersting to see how this volatile exchange rate mechanism develops over the next year or two; will the Pound recover further and will the Euro continue the fall started a month ago? There's no doubt that Italys' adoption of the Euro has made her relative GDP jump exponetially over the last few years. Clearly her economy is being substantially supported by Germany and France principally and secondarily by the little power house economies of the high functional states of the Benelux group.81.107.64.19 (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IMF 2009 GDP Nominal figures

shouldnt we use the IMFs 2009 GDP figures now? 2008 is nearly over!!! its about time we re do the IMFs 2008 list and update it to 2009Bro5990 (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just put the project figures below the official 2008 figures? Just be sure to note that they are projected.--Mark0528 (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Japan GDP 2008-2009 problem

According do this site (IMF) : http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2009&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=158&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=55&pr.y=16 Japan's GDP in 2009 will be $5,048.634 billions (it was $4,910.692 billions in 2008).

How is this possible ? We know that the Projected % Change of Japan's GDP for 2009 is -5,4% ! (http://www.imf.org/external/country/JPN/index.htm) --Zhonghuo (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There's this thing called currency conversion rate. The list is in USD and JPY has been appreciating ever since the financial crisis.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why cann't people just wait for the real 2009 figure coming cout in April 2009, rather than putting projected data of 2009? Be patient —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidshou (talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

a list of every country in the world.

I do not have a clue because this website doesn't tell me proparly.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.81.231 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

China and Japan

China overtake Japan! [10] [11] [12] --88.69.218.160 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Yet! This list is for 2008. Although it is legitimate to ask if the figures for China in 2008 should be updated to 4.6 billion as indicated by the latest Census in China based on your references.

The lists are updated when the sources of the lists update their figures. Not before. Canada Jack (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

CIA Factbook has been updated with economical data for year 2009, someone should update table in article. 28 January 2009.

China to Surpass Japan to Become 2nd Largest Economy in the world

China to Surpass Japan to Become 2nd Largest Economy (Sinocast) December 29 2009. --Before2012 (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Eurovision

How can we fix this article? Anyone that even gets a bristle of the hair follicles on their body when the wind blows knows the EU is not a country. I'm not going to keep fighting to make this article factual. I know "I've lost." Well, not me, but rather the information has been disrupted. The people have lost. The people that come here to see that there is the "World" - a list of countries and the EU, which I am sure brings back sweet, sweet memories for the majority of the populous of this colonial earth.

I put in a RFC. I think 6 people took the time to look at it and it was gone with no comment. Thus, this article will be ruled by the maintainers. Wikipedia worst case scenario...

And then we have the aged argument, "..but,...but....a decision was made on this back when..." A decision was made on Pluto as well. Smart people looked at it and realized it was an orbiting body on the inner edge of the ort cloud rather than a "planet" in our simple definition.

Here are the facts: Title of said article is - List of countries by GDP. Is the EU a country? No.

How hard is this, really? Is it a marker? Sure. Is it important? Yes. Is it a country. No.

I should "crusade" on this topic as it is ridiculous that simple fact be ignored for other purposes. This is Wikipedia. Let's get is right. The EU has no place here. None. Neutralis (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it relevant to add these two entries. In my personal opinion:

Yes, because it provides context to interpret the size of the other countries GDP. So far that reason alone, EU has a place here (PS I would not protest if other economical powerblocks were added if the sources provided the information but they don't). Arnoutf (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, If that is the case, should we include other bodies? I guess that is the argument. And with that said, why not have a chart of said bodies? Where do you draw the line? Mexico is in NAFTA. So is Canada. So if we add them as NAFTA, do we remove them from the list of countries? Well, no...because a good part of the list is EU countries. So they are there. End of story: This is a list of countries...Not what makes us feel better.Neutralis (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not mind having the NAFTA in without a rank number (like World and EU). But we do need the referred sources to provide the number. Arnoutf (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This escapes the point. This is a list of counties (well, now it is a list of economies, which is more fitting - but I feel that will change.) No matter, We can't expand the definition just because. This is a list of countries. Here is a list of my baseball cards, but I am going to include this football card because it is the most valuable one I own, oh and it is important...Neutralis (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant for strictly baseball stats, but economics are more encompassing then countries. And yes I think it would be relevant to add a few examples to the list of wages of baseball players for context. E.g. such a list of wages would benefit from the addition of the most earning sports professional who is not a baseball player but to my knowledge a golfer. Arnoutf (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So, as good Wikipedians, should we now offer this new light on other pages within the knowledge base? I'm a huge baseball fan. Look up payrolls all the time. I didn't see any football, or hockey numbers on those pages, er..."for reference." I just saw the numbers. The payrolls. That was it. Baseball payrolls were baseball payrolls. Football payrolls were football payrolls. Call me stupid, there must be something wrong with that...You know, having the title reflect specifically what is in the article with no deviation based on outside geopolitics...shessh.. Neutralis (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

While this argument might have some merit on the surface, it's not really the same because if you want to find out the list of NHL salaries you'd go to that page and if you wanted NFL salaries you'd go to that page (which I can't find at the moment). But you can't exactly have a "list of countries by GDP" and a "list of extra-national entities by GDP". Players in different leagues break down very logically into two lists. But, in my view, the only logical place to include the EU in a GDP list is here. There is no "better home" for it like there is with a baseball player in the NHL list. Removing it from here removes a useful piece of information, in my opinion, and is not worth doing just so the article pedantically agrees with the its title. TastyCakes (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

JesusIMF, WB and CIA all include the EU/Eurozone. Is wikapeadia all of a sudden too lofty to ignore the EU? Its pretty obvious the EU is put in for comparison and above all because its the way the world is heading (continental trade blocks). Or is this realy about the fact Americans dont take the top spot any more in the global economy, and your feeling insecure? If it is realy about the EU NOT being a country then change the title to List of countries and political unions by GDP (nominal) and if you all didnt know the UK is 4 countries in Union, is the EU any differant? realy? except for the fact the EU is much younger and less unified than the UK, but time sorts all......so if the EU goes then so dose the UK...one rule must apply to all... basicly Change the title or have it mates...Bro5990 (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also if people use their brain, the EU and world dont have a rank. Simply there for comparison. the UK however, which isnt even a country has a rank....if you Neutralis were truely concerned about the integrity of the artical then the UK should be your foremost concern!!!! EU is the worlds largest Political and Economic Union and dominates the world economic system, its currency is replacing the $, and already the Euro is the new global currency for Oil, the Euro is also much stronger than the $...simply the EU is too important to remove from the list. Bro5990 (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

controversial move

Against the repeated claim in the edit summaries, there is no evidence of any consensus, not even an open discussion whether this page should be moved.

The moving editor was bold in moving (fair enough) was reverted, and then moved again.

In the absence of the claimed consensus in the edit summary I think this is not a good way forward.

In any case, if this were a list of economies rather than countries we should list ALL none country economies, that includes those of ALL the different economic unions in the world AND ALL the subcountry economies (e.g. those of all the US states). And all of that with reliable sources. Without that information the move towards economies is making this article infinitely worse than it is now. The challenge lies with you Neutralis, provide these numbers (immediately) or stop pushing this move. Arnoutf (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be bold in listing the Economies. I will make this my personal goal to offer this information to wikipedia. We have the largest in the EU and we can work from there. I appreciate you understanding that a consensus in a group of 50 is not a consensus in a group of a 100. I offered RFC, and there was silence. Nothing. There was no community response to this subject, being - I think it is so cut and dry. (i.e. countries go on a county list.) Of course, I'd be fully willing to ask you to help me get a fair community view of this issue, while not important in social value, important in fact. Neutralis (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I would politely ask User:Neutralis to refrain from making controversial moves until a clear consensus has been reached to make the change. A few months back, User:Neutralis strongly made his case that the EU did not belong in this article and was engaged in a edit war to remove the EU. Now it seems that he is moving the article name to justify his point. I would suggest that we follow a policy of WP:BRD to avoid edit war and use the talk to come to a consensus before making contentious changes in the article. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should have politely asked other users from starting an edit war. That aside, I am sure they will suffer appropriate penalties from 3RR. Nahh, they won't, I'll revert one more time, let someone else be the 5RR person and being this argument is so ridiculous. I think knowledge lost - not me.

Here is the truth...Europeans want the EU listed. Hey, they are better wikipedians. No doubt about that. There is no real reason to keep the EU on this list, but it will stay. And it just reeks of politico. No intelligent person would think the EU is a country, yet there are pages of people that say it is...how sad. How very sad. Good day, and good year. Neutralis (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone please (on my vacation) get a real RFC here so we can actually have an outside look at the simple issue of, "is the EU a country." I know it is a hard thing that they don't teach in school...but I believe in smart people "out there" that can work their way through a dictionary. And no, the claim that the EU is a reference is BS...we can pull in all sorts of references. What makes the EU special? Because those countries where involved in enslaving most of the world for half a millenia? I personally don't think so... Neutralis (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Stats, numbers. List of countries by GDP. How hard is this, really? Neutralis (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think you should move it pending a consensus here. --John (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. But I don't think consensus can be had here. I think we need an outside determinate body. I broke the rules, and now we are looking at 5RR (which I am reporting now, fully knowing I will be put on rest as well.) You can't let the foxes decide if the hens are allowed to play in their yard. I've argued a lot of stupid things in my life, but this really should not be an argument. I state the argument over and over in its simplest terms, yet I don't think people get it. It is not a list of the most powerful countries in the world. It is not a list of the most powerful bodies in the world. It is not a list of the most powerful alliances in the world. It is simple. So, simple. List of countries by GDP. That is what it is...nothing more, nothing less.... Neutralis (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

GDP expressed in national currency units

Why are we using US dollars instead of national currency units for GDP ? Can we create a new article with these numbers ? Polylepsis (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to rank the countries, you need a common currency.

It is common to use the US dollar for this purpose (e.g., our sources do so). Tomeasy _{T C} 12:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 GDP figures?

When do the 2009 figures come out? could some one tell me please? I do hope we dont have to wate too long........ Bro5990 (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 Polylepsis (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

or maybe during the last week of January 2010. http://forums.imf.org/showthread.php?t=322&page=4 Polylepsis (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't the January figures just revised staff estimates (forecasts), not actual preliminary data?--Boson (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

yes i think so. Polylepsis (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ITALY OVERTAKE UK ECONOMY.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/6418344/UK-economy-overtaken-by-Italy.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.102.250 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Revised list

Would it be possible to create a revised list adjusted for national debt? It would be interesting to see how countries such as the EU, US, and China were affected by their debt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.72.87 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan real name

Taiwan name according to IMF is Taiwan Province of China. See: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/02/weodata/weoselco.aspx?g=110&sg=All+countries+%2f+Advanced+economies Polylepsis (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a centrally decided consensus for this issue on Wikipedia, see this policy WP:NC-TW. Many similar cases exist (e.g., Macedonia), and we stick to our guidlines and policies even if the source uses a different naming convention. Nevertheless, thanks for the interesting info on how IMF is now referring to this state. Tomeasy _{T C} 00:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We only use figures from IMF. Not the name according to IMF. That's not even a common name. It doesn't matter whatever so and so says is the name because Wikipedia uses a different naming convention as Tomeasy has showed above. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How to refer to the People's Republic of China?

I see there is a small edit-war going on, whether we should write People's Republic of China or simply China. As opposed to the above thread, here, I am not quite sure if there is a centrally agreed on guideline. I always thought the short form was OK, but I am open to learn the opposite.

In any way, I urge the warring editors to stop their skirmishes and get involved into the present discussion here. The simple term China was long-standing before this war started. So, I think it should be the form implemented in the article until we come to a decision. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i agree.Polylepsis (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Which of my statements do you agree with and why? Tomeasy _{T C} 20:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

China is fine. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Which rationale? WP:NCCN?

Guys, you should back up your opinions a bit! There are people out there constantly changing to PRC. What do you tell. If we want to fix it once and for all, we need a decision that is on solid ground. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

PRC is better per this. Simply calling it China would appear to imply the PRC POV, which we have no business in doing. Pfainuk talk 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Which has been a disputed guideline for years and carries no weight. The rest of the world calls the PRC "China" as shorthand, so Wikipedia can too. The only "POV" comes from a minority of people, making it a WP:FRINGE view. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Which dispute are you taking about? I have had a look at this guideline and did not find any discussion about it during the past year. Can you point to the disputes you mean? For me it appears quite stable. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)