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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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) 22:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please abandon this thread here and comment at Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Taiwan_real_name. Tomeasy _{T C} 00:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here== update needed == IMF has 2011 data, can anyone update the list?

CIA has got the new data for 2009, can anyone update the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidshou (talk • contribs) 14:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing notes

{{Fn}} and {{Fnb}} are up for deletion. I have replaced them here with {{Ref}}. However there are several footnotes without link in the article. For now I have hidden them until someone figures out where they should go. something lame from CBW 08:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Per capita income

Er —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.194.231 (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 IMF Update

IMF release economical data twice a year (on April and October). In my opinion, it will be more plausible to update to 2010 data only when IMF realease the "World Economic Outlook (WEO) April 2011", so we will have some real data, not just estimatives. By the same reason, it make no sense update now to 2011 (or 2012, ... , 2015) estimative, also made avaliable by WEO Oct 2010. Giro720 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of significant relevance?

• Jan 14, 2011, China Overtakes U.S. as Biggest Economy When Measured by Purchasing Power, Bloomberg

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

South Korea

South Korea in the first column is labeled Korea, and uses the old flag for Joseon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.234.65 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Update 2010

we're waiting......... 206.126.80.161 (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

the update will be in April 2010 Polylepsis (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You can update also data from the World Bank, as the World Bank released the data last July 2010.--81.36.211.127 (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And the data for South Sudan and the remaining Sudan (North)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.29.196.228 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

NAFTA?

NAFTA should have it's own slot too, perhaps ASEAN as well. Why allow the EU on the list and ignore the other trading pacts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, NAFTA should be added however include a -, as it does not satisfy the difintion of a country unlike EU. also include other trade blocks, SAARC, AU e.tc Distributor108 (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

New IMF data of 2010 (updated in September 2011) are on the air !!!!

here HOOTmag (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

EU is NOT a country

The EU is not a country. It is not recognized as such by any legitimate entity. The United Nations does not recognize it as a country (as seen by the fact that the EU's member states each have individual seats in the general assembly). No other nation on Earth recognizes the sovereignty of the EU. While the EU has a central bank and a common currency this is where the comparison to a real country ends. Each country sets its own fiscal policy, can (often often does) negotiate its own trade agreements with other countries. Each country has the power to - and often does - disregard actions taken by the European parliament. The countries of the EU have repeatedly rejected the EU Constitution and the effort at real unification.

This is a list of GDP by countries not economic zones - even really unified economic zones. No doubt the EU is the most integrated of all economic zones (more than say NAFTA, ASEAN, or the African Union) but it is still not a country. In fact, the agreements upon which the EU is based recognize the sovereignty of each member state. Until the EU starts signing trade agreements and treaties as a block, has a unifying constitution, has a system of law that recognizes the sovereignty of the EU over its member states, has a unified federal level military, and sets not only monetary policy at a federal level but also fiscal policy at the federal level, it can not be consider a country. And as said - if you want to change the title of this article to "List of GDP by Economic Zone" then fine - but the EU is NOT a country and as long as "Country" remains in the title of this article the inclusion of the EU will be improper.

And if you insist on saying that the sources being used include the EU then either the sources are faulty or are being misinterpreted - as the sources do not themselves hold the EU to be a country, the information they contain on the EU can not be used to support an article about country GDP. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.150.115 (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pasting from elsewhere on the talk page: It is not our decision as to what is included in the lists. These lists are official documents, compiled by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the CIA World Factbook. We are just copying and pasting the information they have given. Take it up with those agencies. If it appears on those lists, it appears on this one. Unless you have a more authoratative source? Night w (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an ever recurring topic. However, the solution is pretty simple. We follow the conventions presented in our sources - even if this appears illogical to some. We are not here to do original research (i.e., sort out which entities are countries and which ones are not). As we can see from the three lists presented, our sources answer this question differently, so we should just adhere to their respective definitions. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

First, you mention consensus. As far as I can tell the "consensus" you speak of is you and a few other very active editors. Just because you are the most persistent does not mean there is a consensus. In fact, if you look at the vast majority of the comments regarding this matter on this page they are against including the EU in this list. So if we are going to go with consensus, then it should not be included. Secondly, if a source itself is faulty then it should not be used. If the sources listed indeed include, in a list of "countries," the European Union then the source - absent evidence that the EU is in fact a country - is itself wrong, and therefore I would imagine not worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. The fact is that, just because something is mentioned in an article or even by a respected agency does not automatically make the information correct. If the information is incorrect - even if the offending source is generally considered respectable or generally accurate - it cannot be used as source material. Since there is no evidence that the EU is a country, any source including it in a list of countries is doing so in error and would be ineligible for inclusion. And there is no argument here on whether the EU is a country. The individual member countries themselves do not recognize the EU itself as a country, nor does the United Nations, nor does any nation on Earth, nor does the IMF itself (despite the EU's inclusion in the list). You will not find a single article supporting the notion that the EU is a country but you will find thousands of sources stating that it is NOT a country. It is as close to an undisputed fact as one can get.

The consensus of the Wiki community (as evidenced by this talk page) is against you and your position and against the inclusion of the EU on this list. The facts are against you - i.e. the EU is in fact not a country. Logic is against you - the title of this article is "list of COUNTRIES by GDP." So the only support you have for your position is that a source includes erroneous information. Either conform to the consensus and the facts and remove the EU from these lists, or find a source that has correct information and eliminate the sources with incorrect information, or create separate lists - 1 with a breakdown of countries by GDP and 1 with a breakdown of economic zones by GDP, or change the name of the article from "list of countries by GDP" to "list of economic zones by GDP." Of course you can always try to find support for the notion that the EU is a country but you will not find any.

So long as the EU is included in a list of countries then false information is being allowed to persist in an article in violation of wikipedia rules. It does not matter how many caveats you provide in the paragraphs preceding the list or that the EU is not ranked - the presence of the EU in a list of countries is erroneous. Furthermore, your reliance on the fact that it is included in a source does not make the information correct it simply makes the source wrong. To tell me that I need to take it up with the offending agency is neither here nor there when it comes to the inclusion of information in a wikipedia article. While it is not the province of wikipedia to do independent research, or to make up its own facts, or even to argue with the definition used by sources, it is the place of wikipedia to use legitimate sources with accurate information. Even if a source is legitimate, if it has inaccurate information then the source can not be used (at least not as it pertains to the factual error). It is not the place of wikpedia to merely cut and paste information when the information being cut and pasted is incorrect. And let's be clear here - given that NO source holds the EU to be a country - and many sources - in fact all the main sources (UN, EU members, other sovereign countries, and even the sources themselves (when you look at their agreements with the EU and EU countries) hold that the EU is NOT a country. So your choices are simple. Either remove the EU, create a separate list for economic zones, change the title of the article, or find a source to support the notion that the EU is a country. Your stubborn reliance on your own inclinations or your blind adherence to the "cut and pasting" of clearly incorrect information will no longer suffice. (please note that if cutting and pasting incorrect information is suitable for wikipedia as long as I source it I'm sure I can find a whole bunch of clearly incorrect information that I'll gladly cut and paste into this article). 68.49.150.115 (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to argue that are sources err. This is not convincing, because two of the three sources list the EU and the third lists the Eurozone. If it was one out of ten, it would be imaginable that this one just made a mistake. In opur case, however, it is obvious that our sources thought well about the case and made a concious decision.

You may want to screen the talk page archive of List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) where a mediation was conducted that involved quite a number of editors. The result was to keep showing the lists as our sources do. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to argue anything - they either err (in stating the EU to be a country) or they are including information broader in scope than the portent of this article. I believe the latter is probably the case. Those lists likely contain the EU for comparative reasons - not because they believe the EU to be a country. (The EU does not have a common currency (only the 16 Eurozone countries do), does not have a common military, does not have common military policy (as evidenced by the fact that different nations are involved in Iraq and Afghanistan while others are not), does not have common fiscal policy (only monetary policy), have seperate seats in the United Station, consider themselves individual sovereign nations, and are considered to be seperate nations by the UN, and other nations). In fact, the IMF, World Bank, and CIA themselves do not in fact hold that the EU is a country, they recognize the sovereignty of the EU's individual nation states, and the EU's inclusion in those agency lists is not meant to infer that the EU is a country but rather is included for comparative reasons.

The lists at those sources, therefore, are in a sense broader in scope then that of this article. Were you citing those sources for a larger article on the GDP of both countries and economic zones, then the EU information in those sources would be pertinent. This article, however, is narrower in scope then those sources. One need not "cut and paste" an entire article/slate of information from a source unless all the information being cited is relevant. For instance, if in an article on the human heart you were citing from a source that included a list of all human organs, you would not need to include the entire list in the wiki article on the heart - rather you would just include the relevant portions on the heart and site to the larger article. Commonsense and the rules of citation, dictate that only relevant material need be included in an article - the citation to the larger source provides the context should the reader need it. Thus in an article about countries, you may cite to a list that contains both countries and economic zones, but only the countries from that list need be included in the wiki article on countries as only the countries are relevant to the article at hand.

You have provided no evidence that the EU is a country - as none exists. Nor have you provided any evidence that the sources themselves believe the EU is a country, and designed the list to indicate that belief - because they do not. Thus its inclusion in a list of countries is incorrect. Citing its inclusion in the source material is not a defense, as the source has a broader scope then the wiki article, does not contend itself that the EU is a country (hence why it is unranked) and therefore includes both pertinent and superfluous (as it pertains to this article) information. Absent evidence that the sources believe the EU to be a country, you should not include information from the source that does not relate to the wiki article at hand, which is on countries.

This is wikipedia - a factual, consensus based, neutral view point encyclopedia. To simply stubbornly block any and all edits contrary to your own believes - when they are clearly contrary to the consensus of the wiki community, logic, and the facts is not keeping in the spirit of wikipedia. If I were to edit out the EU information in accordance with the wishes of a clear majority of wiki users (as evidenced by the discussion on this board), and in accordance with the facts, you would no doubt unilaterally reinsert it and report me for an edit war. Yet I see no reason why you, in this type of community, should have unilateral dictatorial powers to insist on the inclusion of an untruth. Again, citing its inclusion in the source material is not a defense as the fact remains the EU is not a country (and the sources do not contend to the contrary), and the source is over inclusive (and as such all information included therein is not relevant to an article on country GDP). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.150.115 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If the sources we use include it for comparative—or whatever— reasons, why is it not okay for this list to do so?? You say that the sources:

"...do not in fact hold that the EU is a country, recognize the sovereignty of the EU's individual nation states, and the EU's inclusion in those lists is not meant to infer that the EU is a country, but rather is included for comparative reasons."

What, can I ask, is the difference between how information is portrayed here, and how it is portrayed in the sources? You speak as though this page is some kind of declaration of the EU's sovereignty. Nowhere in the page will you find that, in fact it specifically states in the lead:

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. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison.

It doesn't receive a rank because it's not a state. It's listed in italics because it's not a state. Nowhere does it say that it is. Although, let's be honest with each other: that's not really your problem here is it? I love it how nobody brings up the fact that places like Bermuda, Isle of Man, etcetera are all listed despite their statuses as parts of other states. The Union represents a common currency, a common citizenship, and a common economy. It is valuable information that many of our readers will be interested in, just like the World entry. I hardly consider it superfluous or unnecessary. Depriving readers of information—that is readily available in the sources we use—just because you want to bring statehood and sovereignty politics into it...would be a significant mistake. And please, stop talking about consensus. Consensus was achieved here after mediation on the subject. The reason you were reverted was because your edits went against what was decided by the rest of the community. Night w (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Your contention that a consensus has been reached that the EU should be included is laughable. Where are you getting that from? A review of the comments on this talk page shows that a clear majority do not support the inclusion of the EU - so where are you drawing your information from? If anything - no consensus has been reached (in which case the information would be polemic and not eligible for inclusion in the article per wikipedia rules); and to the extent there is consensus, the clear majority support not including it. Just because you, and a few other over eager, over anxious, overzealous, and over persistent editors - and some, I might add (like Tomeasy) with a clear agenda - have decided it should be included does not mean there is a consensus - as I mentioned the majority of the comments on this board do not support EU inclusion. My edits - along with the edits of dozens of others over the last 2 years - have been consistently reverted not because there is a consensus that the EU should be included, not because the EU is indeed a country and therefore a factual inclusion on the list - but rather, because you and the minority of other editors with a clear agenda, have decided that you are right and the facts and consensus is wrong.

There is also an issue of conflict of interest here. Some of the editors (e.g. Tomeasy) who are insisting on the inclusion of the EU in a list of countries (despite the EU not being a country) are citizens of the EU, avowed supporters of the EU, have publicly stated that they do not support the existence of nationalism (declaring it outdated), support the notion that the EU should supersede national boundaries, and attended graduate schools dedicate to that very cause. In any academic setting, such a person would have to recuse themselves from any involvement in a matter such as this. Yet we are to accept their ability to edit block all others to enforce there anything but neutral point of view (again in violation of the spirit and rules of wikipedia)?

As for your contention that the sources include the EU for comparative purposes, so why shouldn't this list - that is a non sequitor. The sources are a broad look at the GDP of nations and economic zones throughout the world. They do not hold themselves to encyclopedic, reference source standards (as Wikipedia does) and are merely including information for information and casual reference sake. This wiki list is narrower in scope - it is a list of country GDP's only. And Wikipedia does hold itself to the higher standard of being reference source. Thus any comparison to non-countries in this wiki article is either not relevant to this list (as it is a list of "countries" not countries and economic zones), is mistitled, and/or, is under inclusive in that it does not include other major economic zones (e.g. ASEAN, NAFTA, etc.) If this article were styled "List of countries and economic zones by GDP" or "comparison of national GDP's to economic zone GDP's) then the inclusion for comparative purposes would make sense. But it is not styled as such, as such, any inclusion of a non-country GDP, even if for comparative purposes, is irrelevant and inappropriate in an article about country GDP's. No amount of disclaimer, italics, or non-ranking status changes the fact that it is inappropriate to include the EU in a list of countries - unless of course the title is changed or other economic zones are added. As for Bermuda, it is recognized as an independent entity that sets its own fiscal and taxing policy, its own defense policy, and makes independent treaties. The United Nations recognizes it as its own entity (although clearly a dependant of the British Crown). Other places like the Isle of Man should indeed not be listed. I have not raised them as one must pick their battles, and once this is won then we can move on to the other listings.

As far as your insinuation that I have a motive, again this is a non sequitor. Unlike Tomeasy, you have no evidence of this and I have plenty of evidence that the EU is not a country and therefore not eligible for inclusion in a list of .....COUNTRIES..... exhibit one of course is your, and the article's admission that the EU is not a country. My interest is only that the article reflects fact, be consistent, meet the rules of Wikipedia, and reflect both the truth and consensus. Any accusation by you of bias on my part is unfounded, unsupported, and highly spurious – least you have evidence to the contrary (like I have against Tomeasy – e.g. his own wiki page), which of course you don’t. So again I ask, in a list of COUNTRIES, that does not contain other major economic zones, why should the EU be included when the source it comes from is broader in scope then our list (hence its inclusion in the source). You really have no argument here: 1) there is no consensus (and to the extent there is, it is for NOT including the EU - exhibit A being the comments on this talk board); 2) the article is a list of countries, and the EU is not one; 3) the source you cite is broader in scope then the wiki article so including all information contained therein is not pertinent - only that information relating to the subject matter of the wiki article (country GDP's) is relevant to the wiki article at hand (a list of countries); and, 4) to the extent that the EU is, and should be (by your argument) included in the list of countries for comparative purposes, then why are you not supportive of the inclusion of other major economic zones? Because they are not included in the source? Well that argument fails, because you are already expanding the scope of the wiki article by including non-countries, so if you are going to say "well the IMF includes it only for comparative reasons then so should we" the same logic applies to including NAFTA et, al. The information is readily available on the internet, well sourced, and multiple sourcing of lists is both common on Wikipedia and supported by the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. Is it because you believe the EU is more integrated? Well the fact is, only the Eurozone, not the EU as a whole, is integrated to the degree you mention above. There is no common EU currency - only 16 of the 27 EU members have a common currency (the Euro), hence the sub-inclusive group - the Eurozone. You say the EU has an integrated economy - no, it is a partially integrated economy (e.g. common trade agreements, common monetary policy, etc.) There is, however, no integrated fiscal policy, or tax and spend policy or power, the debt and spending goals are regularly violated by member countries, nor is there any integrated polity (each country's sovereignty trumps the EU decisions when there is a conflict), nor is there any integrated military policy. Thus, though its level of integration may be more advanced or more mature than other economic zones, the EU as a whole it is not fundamentally different, your clear wish to the contrary aside. Perhaps an argument could be made that the Eurozone is fundamentally different than those other economic zones, but not that the EU as a whole is so different that one could support its inclusion but not the inclusion of other major economic zones.

So I ask once again - what is the argument for including a non-country in a list of countries? Citing a source that is broader than our article is not a justification, and if we are including it for comparative purposes then why not include other economic zones? 68.49.150.115 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Conciseness is a virtue. Please assume good faith. You won't get anywhere slandering other editors like that. Read over what was decided here, and if you truly wish to bring it up again, pursue it at either WP:RfC, WP:MEDCAB, or something similar. Thanks. Night w (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Truth is an absolute defense to slander and I have said nothing untrue. The editor I mentioned does indeed hold those positions as indicated on his wiki page and issues of conflict of interest are legitimate, and routinely raised in both the academic and journalistic fields, and are appropriately raised when it comes to issues of editing wiki articles (hence Wikipedia’s rules regarding POV). If anything you have acted in bad faith by implying that I have a bias, absent evidence to support such a spurious claim. I will indeed take this matter to the next level in the hopes that less biased and more reasonable minds may prevail.68.49.150.115 (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You have said more than a dozen times now that the EU is not a country. I think that everybody has well heard this ergument by now. There is no need to repeat it. Indeed, nobody claims the opposite. You are right in that the article name includes te word countries. Nevertheless, not all items in these lists are countries. Note further, the the EU and Eurozone are not ranked in this list. Your comments would get much shorter if you abstained from repeating the same arguments over and over again, thereby saving your and our time.

Another activity I would like to discourage is to speculate about peoples deeper motivation for contributing their arguments. These are irrelevant. I do not care if you are a citizen of the EU, the US, or any other place. I do not care if you want to remove the EU for other reasons than those you are stating, all I do care about is the arguments you are actually giving. You would do good if you approached this discussion with a similar attitude. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The argument bears repeating and repeating and repeating, at the expense of redundancy, since you, in clear opposition to the facts, commonsense, and the clear consensus of this discussion page refuse you to allow factual changes to be made to this page (either the removal of the EU, the change of the title of the article, or the inclusion of other economic zones). Your bias is relevant - as it is relevant in any academic setting - recusals due to conflict of interest are common, accepted, and expected in judicial, academic, journalistic, and other fields where high standards of ethics and integrity are important. Only a tyrant would bristle at the idea that his motivations should be called into question when there are clear facts to support such a claim. If someone is clearly being odorant, stubbornly refusing to hear logic or facts, and has on occasion publicly made his feelings known on the topic (with comments such as "nationalism is outdated" "I support the EU" and have attended educational programs clearly designed to further those feelings) – then it is only logical and proper to wonder if the intransigence is more a symptom of his biases as opposed to a principled stand on the facts. Thus, motivation and bias, in a setting such as this, where you are acting as an edit blocker, are relevant. Would it not be fair to call into question the motives of any final arbiter of the facts (e.g. a Judge), if that arbiter has previously expressed an opinion on the matter? How can a community such as this have faith that the final verdict is one based on logic and fact, when the decider has such clearly entrenched and publicly expressed opinions?

Exhibit A is the fact that even in conceding that the EU is not a country, which admittedly is a step in of itself in the right direction, and not included on the list for any other reason than that the source includes it and it is, according to you important/interesting for comparative reasons, why then do you take the further step of refusing to allow the addition of other economic zones or a change in the title? Surely a more intellectually honest article (with a proper title) and/or a more illustrative article (one with other major economic zones included) would further all of your goals and be a logical extension from the inclusion of the EU. I do not mean to attack your character, I don't know you enough to do so and very much believe in acting in good faith - it is simply your unwillingness to compromise - which is after all at the heart of Wikipedia's consensus building - that has caused me to call into question motivation (along with your public statements). If indeed the EU's inclusion is proper for comparative reasons, then surely the inclusion of other economic zones (NAFTA, ASEAN, etc.) would only serve to further the article's purpose and increase the reader's understanding of the facts. No? 68.49.150.115 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself so often. What is written on my user page is accesibble to everybody. There is no need to cite it several times.

There was no move to what you call the right direction. I have never claimed that the EU is a country. The term country itself is a mess. Does it mean sovereign state? Or would Scotland be a country, too.

As concerns the title of this article, I have never expressed that there could not be a better wording. So, calling me stubborn is not only insulting, perhaps you are just making too many assumptions.

Why aren't other trade blocs included, you ask. Don't you know the answer yourself? Our sources do not include NAFTA, however, they include the EU.

Don't you want to create an account? Tomeasy _{T C} 23:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There was that earlier proposal to change "countries" → "economies"... What ever happened to that? It's arguably a more appropriate subject title, if only to end this silly debate that will just keep continuing. We'd still be restricted to the what's in the sources anyway, so there'd be no issues of extra additions. Also, the World Bank source seems to use "Economy" rather than "Country" for its own list. Night w (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The page is listed as "List of countries by GDP (PPP)". The EU isn't a country, nor can be categorized as a country with GDP. Therefore its inclusion in the graph is off-topic. Any other assumptions or forms of argumentation denying this is considered "original research". Even if it appears with a consensus of data, it is not contingent with the article. Facts are facts and that is that.

There are too many differences of opinion to come down to an agreeable resolution. I, for one, agree against placing other entities other than factual countries in this list. Adding NPOV at the top of the section. Kaigenji (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It states quite clearly in the lead: "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. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison." Any reason why you only have a problem with the EU and not, say, Turks and Caicos Islands aswell? Because your arguments could easily apply to any number of entries on that page. But this page has nothing to do with politics, it's about economics, and our readers are not likely to care about the technicalities regarding the definition of "country"; if they did, this wouldn't be a port of call for that kind of information. Our sources list data for these polities so we should also. It's a useful piece of information for comparison of member states' data. Nightw 11:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The only reason why attention was directed at the EU is because it is the most recognizable economic-non-country-entity within the list. I essentially mean to say is that anything that is not recognized as a COUNTRY, should NOT be listed in a list of COUNTRIES. I am fine with the EU and various parts of the world with functioning economies in a list of ECONOMIES, but placing them into a list of countries is not fundamentally correct. Maybe you are the one thinking of politics. I'm just looking at what is factual and what isn't and that's what Wikipedia is all about. Kaigenji (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

First Night W, despite your condescending, unprofessional, and unnecessarily petty remark that the debate is silly (a reflection more on your character and ability to entertain honest and intellectual debate than on any arguments being made here), at least you have made a very acceptable and wise concession - the title of the article should be changed from "countries" to "economies" - at least one source uses that term, and it more closely reflects the actual nature of the lists. We can redirect any searches for "list of countries by GDP (ppp)" to this page, rightfully retitled to "economies." Any disagreements?

As for you Tomeasy, I'll repeat any argument I like as many times as I like if I feel it necessary to break through your clearly thick and obtuse skull. Are you really trying to say that just because these particular, arbitrarily chosen sources, don't include other economic zones we shouldn't add other economic zones - even though we could find ample sources to support their inclusion? What Wikipedia policy is there that disapproves of multi-sourcing an article or a list? Are not multisourced articles and lists de rigueur on Wikipedia and in academia? So you're telling me that if I were to include other economic zones, site the legitimate sources from which they came, and made it clear that the information came from a different source, you'd object? If so, why - under what Wikipedia policy would you be acting to block the inclusion of an additional legitimate, relevant source?68.49.150.115 (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@IP You must know that Wikipedia has a very strict policy of No personal attacks. Please avoid statements like "condescending, unprofessional, and unnecessarily petty remark" or "your clearly thick and obtuse skull." It is possible to block your IP address if you continue this behavior. Please take my advice and let's just talk about the subject.

The IMF, Worldbank, and CIA are not arbitrarily chosen institutions for these data. They are used everywhere on Wikipedia because they are the most authoritative ones to cover all world economies. Since they do not include mere trade blocs in their list, I oppose including such data in the reproduced lists here on Wikipedia. If you can come up with another solution, e.g., a section below the lists that shows other trade blocs for comparison (well sourced of course), then I could live with it, even though it might be a bit of a redundant copy from here.

As to the renaming, I am not opposed to think about options. However, I remember that either User:Arnoutf or User:Canada Jack had reasonable arguments in the past against changing the word countries to economies. Unfortunately, I could not find this thread anymore. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine one could think that calling another's argument "silly," "redundant," or questioning one's motives - without evidence to support such an accusation - is also a personal attack, but one wrong does not make a right, and even if I think the offense being taken here is a little oversensitive, point is taken that it is neither here nor there and not productive to this debate. Well if we are agreed that "economies" is more reflective of the actual list displayed and that an additional (well sourced) list of economic zones would be okay, what is the best way to proceed? To submit the issue for further consensus, just make the change, etc. . .?68.49.150.115 (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not call you silly. Your argumentation was repetitive, which you admit yourself, another word for this is redundant. I was not aware that this is listed as an offensive word in your vocabulary. Is it really? Are you honestly believing that using the word redundant justifies your personal attack on me, cited above? I believe that you see very well the point being made here. Why is it so difficult to admit this in a sincere way?

As for the change to economies, I would not support that move by now, without having heard the user I mentioned above, or at least revisiting their argument against such a change. I admit that it is up to me to do something about this. However, i am not allowed to just ask them for a comment, as this would be WP:canvassing. So, give me some time and I will try to find what I am referring to.

As for adding other trade blocs, fine with me, as long as you do not put them in the lists that are reproductions of the most authoritative sources. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering a lengthy mediation took place on this very issue, I think it would be (at the very least) polite to inform those previously involved before any changes to the consensus are seriously considered. I don't think I'd support adding a list of trade blocs to this page, as it would have to be a separate list and I don't see where or how such a list would be incorporated. It also already has it's own page that would subsequently be made obsolete, so would this be a merge proposal? A title change might fix the EU technicality, but it would not see any trade blocs added to the main lists, as none appear in the sources. Overall, I still fail to see a substantial reason for change. The EU entry is not ranked, and it is displayed identical with other non-state polities, like World and dependencies. Night w (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I was just showing my limits for a possible compromise. Of course, I find the current state of the article better. Also, you are right in that we cannot simply deviate here from a mediation result that was achieved among many more editors. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear 68.49.150.115, have you read the wikipedia article on the European Union? To quote the introduction:

"The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws which apply in all member states including the abolition of passport controls within the Schengen area. It ensures the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital, enacts legislation in justice and home affairs, and maintains common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries and regional development. [...]

Through the Common Foreign and Security Policy the EU has developed a limited role in external relations and defence. Permanent diplomatic missions have been established around the world and the EU is represented at the United Nations, the WTO, the G8 and the G-20."

This contradicts almost everything you (68.49.150.115) stated in your first paragraph.

Since its foundation in Maastricht, every reform treaty (Amsterdam,Nice, Lisbon) of the EU has resulted in EU institutions taking over more and more areas of authority from the member states. The EU jointly negotiates trade policy with Africa and Latin America on the EU-Latin America summit and the EU-Africa summit.

Just some examples on the powers of the EU:

- In Germany, prison sentences are usually less than 10 years, but for the 200-300 most dangerous criminals there is something called "Sicherungsverwahrung" (security detention) that a judge could order, and that meant prison for as long as you're deemed dangerous. The Court of Justice of the European Union recently decided that this was against EU law and now many of those dangerous criminals had to be released. Many of them are now being monitored by police 24/7 because they are considered so dangerous.

- Fiscal policy: if a eurozone-member repeatedly breaks the Maastricht stability criteria, i.e. increases its debt by more than 3% of the GDP annually, the EU council can decide on fines of up to 0.5% of the GDP, and can set a "bail" the country has to deposit at the ECB until its budget is in line again.

To come to an end: the EU is a hybrid. It's not yet a nation but it very well might be one day. Leave the list the way it is. --Hisredrighthand (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

DATA FROM THE WORLD BANK

Since last July 2010 there is data from the World Bank about GDP 2009 at PPP.--81.36.211.127 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The page is listed as "List of countries by GDP (PPP)". The EU isn't a country, nor can be categorized as a country with GDP. Therefore its inclusion in the graph is off-topic. Any other assumptions or forms of argumentation denying this is considered "original research". Even if it appears with a consensus of data, it is not contingent with the article. Facts are facts and that is that.

• A recent edit had me contemplating this aspect too and I must say that I agree, the EU is not a country and should not be included as such. Stephenjh (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There are too many differences of opinion to come down to an agreeable resolution. I, for one, agree against placing other entities other than factual countries in this list. Adding NPOV at the top of the section. Kaigenji (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a newbie here, and I must say that while I agree the EU is not a country, as everybody knows, it is really nice to have the total for the EU, instead of forcing me to remember all EU states and do the math. I guess it is so convenient that the original sources found it convenient to sum it up as well. I am pretty sure they know the EU is not a country either.... Not sure why one would take offense about it. I do not think it would make sense to create a new page just for "group of countries" or organizations. And while "World" is not a country, again it is very convenient, so thank you Wikipedia for presenting the data in a useful manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.114.236 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think its time we consider EU as country, it satisfies all defination for being a country. Unless someone has reasons why it is not a country, we should go ahead an rank it as 1 or 2, instead of the currently used -. Distributor108 (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current practice, of listing the EU among the states but not as a state. It's country-like in various ways, certainly more so than any trade bloc, but it's certainly not like any usual country, even federal ones -- provinces of a country generally don't have independent militaries, including two nuclear ones, and separate foreign policies. Current events show the eurozone has a single monetary policy but dangerously little fiscal integration. Mindstalk (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

PPP is horribly inaccurate and misinforms readers

PPP is a very bad indicator as it grossly inflates poorer countries GDPs, for example China's economy using PPP is much bigger than Japan's but in reality (nominal) the economies are quite similar in size. If I wanted to buy a brand new BMW in China according to PPP I could buy the car at china's price level and only pay 5,000 euros which obviously can't be done, if I want a new BMW I have to pay 25,000 euros doesn't matter if I am in America or China. PPP only works for cheap local services or homemade goods like haircuts and food. Furthermore PPP doesn't adjust for technology differences and/or productivity, leading one to believe that the local goods and services at the domestic price levels are all equal. PPP was made to adjust for Western Europe's high price levels and now its being used to trick people. PPP makes it seem like the 3rd world is getting much richer (BIC) Brazil, India, China when in reality its just making the 3rd world seem richer, by adjusting the price levels. Its just another example of white people ripping everyone else off. For example the IMF uses Nominal GDP numbers when ranking countries in terms of "richness" when writing loans. PPP goods have a smaller effect on the standard of living than many non-economists think. This fact should be noted to the average reader.

It seems that you should better verify the data before commenting. You've mentioned Brazil among the "3rd world" countries whose GDPs are supposedly being inflated by PPP estimates. However, there's a very small difference between Brazil's nominal GDP and its PPP GDP for 2010 (IMF estimates): US$ 2.090.314.000.000,00 for nominal GDP vs. US$ 2.172.058.000.000,00 for PPP GDP (an increase of just 3,91%). In which regards to ranking, PPP GDP even lowers Brazil's position, from 7th to 8th largest world economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.76.35.227 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

67.252.78.59 (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC) American Dood

I think the article is sufficiently clear about what PPP is, also in opposition to nominal. An inclusion of such a list on Wikipedia is also valid due to its significance in the outside worls. How helpful you personally think it is, is less important. Least important is your point of view that it is another example for white people ripping others of. Such opinions can be posted, e.g., on your private plot, but Wikipedia is not a forum.

What would you change/add?

What are PPP goods. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

PPP (if well calculated) isn't any more misleading than exchange rate figures; they're both flawed measures, good for different purposes. For most countries most economic activity is domestic; PPP gives an idea of the magnitude of that, and of quality of life, insulated from exchange rate fluctuations. OTOH, exchange rate governs importing power. Mindstalk (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Data Change

I have roughly edited the gdp section of the top 5 but I request Wikipedia to edit it more systematically to incorporate the latest changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.207.145 (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The list is too confusing with both 2010 and 2011 data on the same list. It makes no sense, we're comparing apples and oranges. The description still says it's referring to 2010 data yet there's 2011 data in there. I request that the lists be kept consistent with 2010 data or 2011 data and not mixed data. If you want to update, I request that you update the entire list. Also, I do not see the source for where the World Bank and IMF release 2011 data already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.85 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll reprint the article history here so you can finally realise that you're actually doing the exact thing you're arguing against.

1. 1st diff — a new user replaces the top 5 entries with 2011 figures
2. diff — I revert the user's edit, adding back the 2010 data
3. diff — you revert me (and call my revert vandalism)

Do you understand now? Nightw 16:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Night, you agree that we should have consistent (2010 data, in this case) data? Currently I am showing the last revision is by you, and there is 2011 data mixed with 2010 data. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.111.227 (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry—it's a misunderstanding on my part. You were indeed removing 2011 data as I originally did. I'm not sure who initially inserted it. Thanks for responding. Nightw 12:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Two points for NightW:

A) You are quite obviously wrong. You've edit warred to reinsert the 2011 data twice now. The third link that you provided above clearly shows the 2010 data being restored, only for you to subsequently revert to the mixed data. Had you bothered to read the edits before edit warring and name calling, you would have seen your mistake. Do you understand now?

B) You seem more intent on attacking other editors and bullying them to get your way than collaboratively addressing the issue. Edit summaries such as [1] are not appropriate. Perhaps in light of point A) you will have a different perspective on who the idiot in this discussion is? 213.220.233.192 (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

CIA World factbook 2012

The latest factbook gives the 2011 estimates for "Country Comparison :: GDP (purchasing power parity)" here. Should I make the update here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anir1uph (talk • contribs) 08:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that the CIA list is a list of estimates, however the CIA only ever lists estimates, so that is the best were ever going to get from them. Also. List of countries by GDP (nominal) has been updated to CIA World factbook's 2011 estimates. Anir1uph (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking your word for it. No objections here. Nightw 11:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The list is obviously screwed

for starters China and Brazil have traded places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.113.100.242 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Talk^Woe90i 02:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone keeps trading the USA and China. --88.74.216.194 (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Map at top is weird

The key: what are the numbers?

China and the US both dark blue. Australia light blue. Doesn't make sense. Tony (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony! Why wouldn't that make sense? look at the values presented in the tables below! USA and China have high values, Australia has a moderate value. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, and I specified the key as showing $Billion. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Tom, my hurried mistake in terms of the colours of those three nations. But why not put "US$" before and "bn" after the figure in each line of the key? I see a "+" and then a "<", which should be consistently one method or the other of expressing this. The ranges would be a lot easier to read with the proper dash, if you have access to the original (> US$10,000bn, US$2,000–10,000, etc). It's all grey at the moment, but perhaps colour could be used to give greater clarity for readers. Thx. Tony (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

These are, of course, all very valid comments. I would have naturally adhered to most of them, if it had been my work. As an SVG, it is principally editable by everybody. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

New IMF data are on the air.

here.

77.125.7.7 (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

notice that the Brazil PPP figure is lower than the GDP figure? There appear to be errors in their online database still. --— robbie ^{page talk} 14:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

China GDP PPP data?

According to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)&oldid=158053092

China GDP PPP in 2007 is almost 10 trillion dollars. How come China GDP PPP today(2011) is only 11 trillion dollars and in 2010 it is still 10 trillion dollars. So from the year 2007 to 2010 China GDP PPP grow zero?

That is one question for me, I usually read wikipedia since 2007, I remember in 2009, the data of China suddently change without any inform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.151.148.227 (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

why no update for wordbank 2011???

its already out http://databank.worldbank.org/databank/download/GDP_PPP.pdf --Shokioto22 (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Why?

The IMF and CIA are not a primary source for purchasing power parity (PPP) data. WEO weights have been created from primary sources and are used solely for purposes of generating country group composites. For primary source information, please refer to one of the following sources: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank, or the Penn World Tables.

What is your answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Economist1199 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was rejected because it goes against WP:NODISCLAIMERS. The formatting is also bad. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What should I do now? You can help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokturkk (talk • contribs) 11:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Is this two persons or one? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

He is my bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokturkk (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be sure about your brotherhood. Because once a Check user learned that either of you is a sock of another, that will result to a fast block. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 11:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

new worldbank data is out

please update it if someone has a lot of time http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD/countries/order=wbapi_data_value_2012%20wbapi_data_value%20wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc&display=default

--Quandapanda (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

RUSSIA. DIFFERENCE IMF AND WORLD BANK

Why is so different the data about RUSSIA from the IMF and from the World Bank. While for the rest of the nations in the World, data is very similar, data for RUSSIA is completely different. A huge $ 800 bn. difference!! There must be an explanation for that.--83.32.84.197 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

New statistic World Bank

Russia-3 373 Germany-3 349 WorldBank.http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD/countries/order=wbapi_data_value_2012%20wbapi_data_value%20wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc&display=default — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.191.138.168 (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WB data are full of inflation.IMF is much more trustable.151.40.55.125 (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

new IMF World Economic Outlook data as of Oct 9 2013

these data should probably be updated 99.235.229.77 (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Brazil and Iran are in reversed positions in the list

I noticed an error in the list. In the three surveys, Brazil appears below various countries relative to GDP, while Iran appears just behind Russia. I believe that whoever edited erred and changed the position of the two countries. Have fix. União da Juventude Mestiça (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

New data have just been published by IMF

New data.

HOOTmag (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

world bank

did someone hack into world bank, because their answers are completely different like mexico passing spain, indonesia passing south korea and where is the g20 nation south africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.9.141 (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The wrong map of russia

The wrong map of russia

Where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolltheblunt (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)