Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)/Archive 5

EU is a country? / Is it any relevant? NPOV ISSUE DISCUSSION
No it is not a country. That is why it has not ranking, but a dash, in the list. In case it was a country it would be in the number 1. However it is not only an economic cooperation zone. It has strong political tokens, such as parliament, flag, and others. It is good to have it there in the list.

I'm sorry, but last time I checked, the EU is an economic cooperation zone, not a country. Yes, it has a parliament, a flag, an a currency (soon for most of it), but it's not a country. Should we put NAFTA on this page as well? How about ASEAN? CARICOM? Is it just an ego boost for the Europeans?


 * No, the EU isn't a country, yes, NAFTA should be here, and ASEAN, and so on. James F. (talk) 03:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please include NAFTA as it seems we are including continental trade organizationsRobertoMiguel (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can someone please put EU and the others back in the article? Thanks Alensha 22:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, the last time you checked must have been a long time ago. It is generally accepted that the EU is sui generis, unique in the world and quite incomparable to the mere free trade areas of NAFTA and ASEAN. In matters of economics and trade it makes more sense to regard the EU as whole, rather than to study it's individual states. On other matters, the states are still prime. Walshicus 16:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The person that compared the EU to ASEAN and NAFTA most be not European and doesnt know what is the EU and the integration process in Europe. (he mentioned that in the EU there is a President, but I fixed it) Do you vote for a NAFTA parliament? Does the ASEAN has power over national companies that doesnt permit them to merge? Do you have a single currency? Do you have a flag? NAFTA surely has borders and very secure ones with Mexico, that doesnt exist in most EU countries. There is even a status for European citizen. Most EU countries have less independence that most states in the USA. Be real! The UE should be placed in its place, it is not Ego, its the reality. And i'm afraid that this article is POV, by the opposite reason, the EU is not placed, it is simply mensioned. Even the CIA now puts the EU in its place. The only ego and ignorance ("Economic cooperation zone?!?!?!?! ) I see in here, is from the original author of this section. -Pedro 20:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You make some good points but no one cares about the EU flag :-). Plus, not all EU states use the Euro, and they've hardly transferred full political power to Brussels, even if there is an EU president (think of Merkel or Sarkozy vs. the EU president who has more power? It's in-between a single country and economic area, sui generis as the above poster stated, maybe the EEA should be listed instead? Historian932 (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The EU is not included in the IMF predictions so should not be included, thats it... Neither NAFTA or the EU so respect the criteria.


 * CIA World factbook includes the EU as an economic unit of its own. It is a common market that goes far beyond NAFTA et al. So it should be ranked. As for the political status, the EU is somewhere between a confederation and a federation. About 50% of the laws in the member states are Union laws. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html

To the person starting this discussion: You are right, the European Union is not a country, but the list does not only include fully souvereign countries (thats why Hongkong is included). The European Union is a country on some areas, most obviously on economics, but not on military for example. Because this list is about economics and the EU is an economic union (no borders, free trade, single currency, a european monopolies commission and a european economic comission it is fair to include it here. I would agree not to include it in a list of military strength for example.

It's quite frankly absurd to include the EU in this list - for one, it results in EU member nations being counted twice, in addition, the original source document includes no special numbers for the EU, the EU does not have a single currency (and, no, the Euro doesn't count; the UK, Sweden, Denmark, and the new 10 are not part of the Eurozone), and as the final nail in the coffin, the EU is not a nation and as such it's foolish to include (and rank) it in a list of countries. Clearly, someone felt the need for the EU to "beat out" the US, so they compiled a figure and inserted it into the rankings. If the EU is to be included, it should be unranked and denoted with a note that it is not a "country".

This isnt just about one person deciding that it should be on the list, its on the Official IMF list so it should be included on the Wikipedia list as all Wikipedia is doing is putting the info up on this site so it can be easily accessed. We cant just go around chainging it because we dont like what it says, just like the CIA list we shouldnt add the EU to the list because it wasnt on it originally. It really is very simple to comprehend i dont really understand what the discussion is about.


 * NAFTA, ASEAN, CARICOM are all economic partnerships directly equivilant to the EEA (i.e. The European Economic Area trading community which includes the EU countries + Norway, Iceland etc.). The EU however goes far beyond these economic partnerships/trading blocks, with some (but not nearly all) of the aspects being mentioned above. Canderra 01:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the EU should be in the article, it is a hugely powerful political body verging on a federal state. Shall we vote on it? I also think that the figures should be in Euros rather than in U.S. Dollars - mastodon 14:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep EU - mastodon 14:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep EU. It's on the IMF and CIA lists, also pretty much all global economists talk about the EU on a relative scale to other countries: China, Japan, USA. So of course it should be here. - Canderra 01:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep While the EU is "something more" than NAFTA and those, it does not qualify under the title of this article, which is "List of countries..." Because the EU is not a country, it should not be listed in the main section (this is very simple logic). However, I have a proposal: why not make a separate list of EU-like organizations below the main list of countries? That way, you can keep the EU, include other organizations, and not violate the sanctity of the article.UberCryxic 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The EU is the only one among the like to be frequently compared with other economies as a single entity. It is also the only one to have international organisation membership. If it is to be removed, it still have to presented in a more or less similar way Australia is mentioned through footnotes on lists of islands. &mdash; Instantnood 01:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This to me is a no-brainer.

Section 2
The EU clearly is not a nation, but it exists as a federation like no comparable economic or political group now or ever before.

It seems to me that some Americans are getting a their noses out of joint by seeing America falling behind the EU on some of these lists, but in my view it is not only relevant to see the EU as a distinct and quasi-national body, it is entirely appropriate. It is now starting to throw its economic weight around, in many ways challenging American dominance. NAFTA or Asean simply do not operate in any similar fashion. Politically and militarily, the EU is far less cohesive than America is, so America's leadership there is not dismissed, but if the EU in the future matches its economic strength with its political and military, then it will be dominant world power.

As for the remark that the euro has no single currency, it has the euro, which is the official currency for 300 million people in the EU so far, the 13th EU country to adopt it will be Slovenia in January, three or four more a year later and by 2016 or so likely the entire Union save for Britain will have the Euro as its official currency.

To pretend this is some sort of European "ego boost" is laughable.

The slow accumulation of economic and political power in the EU suggests it could some day be the leading world power, especially if the euro replaces the dollar as the world's reserve currency of choice.

As for what constitutes a "nation," if we really want to be picky, what about the United Kingdom? England and Scotland are often considered to be distinct nations, should we also list them separately?

--Johnny Canuck 06:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To say that accusations of European ego boosting are laughable and then describing Americans as getting their noses out of joint seems like a double standard. There's an element of ego on both sides, and some validity as well. Historian932 (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

One flag, one parliament, one economic policy, one currency (moving forward). Ok, it is not a country, and that is why it is not ranked as number 1, but it is good to have it there. Many Europeans we feel more Europeans than from an X country.

If we are going to maintain that the European Union should have its own entry in this article and List of countries by GDP (PPP), it should also have its information added to List of countries by population, List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, List of countries by external debt, List of countries by imports, List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita per hour, etc. I will dare not mention the implications for List of countries. This all seems very absurd. The fact that the European Union is closer to a country than any other non-country does not make it a country, nor does it mean that it should be catagorized along with countries. AlexeiSeptimus 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the criteria to include the EU is/should be:
 * It’s considered useful info (for the reader) and it’s sourced
 * Not:
 * The title says countries
 * It’s done here so it should be done elsewhere
 * Fragile patriotic feelings
 * --Van helsing 12:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * EUROPEAN UNION
 * Reasons why the EU should not be included in any economic data which pertains to "countries"
 * It is not a country
 * An organization with a flag, government, currency does not make it as a country
 * It confuses everything (EU is present in many lists here in wikipedia, WHY???)
 * Most countries in the EU dont even agree on many economic issues i.e. EU currency
 * It doesnt have a military on its own
 * EU is just a lousy excuse to say that Europe still has any influence on the Global economy.
 * Bottom line is the eu should not be on any list that refers to countries. The European Union doesnt make any sense. They hardly agree on anything, they hardly have any political global infulence so why are they here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.115.66 (talk • contribs)


 * It is not a country
 * An organization with a flag, government, currency does not make it as a country
 * It confuses everything (EU is present in many lists here in wikipedia, WHY???)
 * Most countries in the EU dont even agree on many economic issues i.e. EU currency
 * It doesnt have a military on its own
 * EU is just a lousy excuse to say that Europe still has any influence on the Global economy.

'''1)It doesnt have borders, has a flag a parliament, a budget, currency. I believe this makes it a country. 2)Yes it does 3)Because all international organizations(including CIA, the UN, G8 summits) consider it a country. 4)Yes they do actually. Parliament set goals country-members try to achieve.(Imagine mexico actually taking part in USA's economy planning through NAFTA lol). And basically all members have timescheadules for the currency. 5)Neither does bulgaria, iceland, luxembourg, Monaco, liechtenstein whats your point? 6)Actually it does dont be naive.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.85.160 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try and say this as simply as possible; the placement of the EU in the list is not our decision. The IMF has the EU in their list, and it is our job to place that list in this article. The World Bank does not have it in their list, hence its absense in the list according to the World Bank. Is this so hard to understand? We are presenting the data reported by others; we are not presenting modified data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.173.6.66 (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

The EU has many features that make it a collection of 'united states' and a country in all but name - and I'm not talking about flags: It is more than just a trade agreement. Members sign up to abide by a unified codes that include law, the environment, and migration. European law supercedes all laws of the member countries. Where there is conflict between EU law and the laws of a particular member, EU law takes presidence. The EU has its own constitution, which supercedes any constitution of its member states. The EU has its own court system, which is the highest court of appeal for any of the menber states. Member states all make monetary contributions to the EU (taxes), which it then redistributes dependant on agreed spending. The EU has its own parliament with law-making powers, which have authority on all member states. All member states participate in elections, whereby members of the general voting public elect parliamentary members (MEPs). The EU has its own currency. It can be argued that not all members have switched to the new currency, however this does not detract from the fact that the currency exists. It should also be remembered that many 'countries' do not have unified currencies. In the United Kingdom, Scotland and Northern Ireland both have their own currencies (the Bank of Scotland, Clydesdale Bank, and Royal Bank of Scotland all print their own notes). The EU has its own military police force. The EU parliament elects a president every 2-3 years. There is free movement of population within European member countries (although some restrictions apply for new members). Health provision of the member state is honoured for all members visiting another member's country. Educational standards of all member states are given equal standing (e.g. a doctorate gained in any given member country must be treated with equal status by all member states). Members constituents have the right to vote in the local elections of whichever country in which they reside (e.g. A German living in Britain has the right to vote in British local elections). No EU member constituent can be treated differently purely on the grounds on belonging to a different member state (e.g. I cannot be forced to carry an ID card because I am not a native of that country if natives do not, I should not have to go through any formal registration process to gain entitlement to governmental provisions - such as the right to vote in local elections - if no such registration process exists for natives, I cannot be surcharged, denied service, or asked to produce additonal documentation by a company because I am not a native of the country (surcharges on ATMs are also included)). Each member consituent has the same basic consumer rights. These can be added to by individual states, but not removed. All member states agree to a minimum standard for environmental health, safety, and working conditions.

Most Americans should feel familiar with this legal and governmental setup because it is exactly the same as those operated by the United States of America.

Section 3
For many political reasons, the EU does not refer to itself as a country. However, I cannot think of any definition of what a country is that the EU does not meet. As such a large economic and political force in the world, it cannot be ignored and I feel, therefore, it needs to be included in any discussion of world economics. Whether you call it a country or not is immaterial. It is clear that there is a huge gap between what the EU represents and what amount to mostly commercial agreements such as NAFTA and ASEAN.

This whole argument is so dumb, what you people don't seem to understand is that its not up to Wikipedia users to decide what should appear on this list. The list that contains the EU entry is compiled by the IMF thus the information should copied directly without changing it or removing parts based on the opinion of Wikipedia users. I think we are all smart enough to realise that we shouldnt be messing with sources even if you dont agree with them. Mad onion 19:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your basic premise that it is not up to Wikipedians to change the contents of the list. However, if you check the cited September 2006 IMF reference in the article, you will find that the EU is not in the list. Therefore, it shouldn't be in the list in this article. To resolve this, I propose that a mini-list be added after the IMF and World Bank lists titled "Significant trading regions" and include in there the European Union, NAFTA, ASEAN and any other significant areas. That will provide meaningful information in this article while removing a non-country from a list of countries. What does the community think? Truthanado 06:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. On a side note, it IS up to the Wikipedia to decide which content to duplicate. The content of the article always matches the title. If I were to make a list of U.S. Presidents, would I throw in a few senators or vice presidents because "they were pretty much as influential as presidents"? Think about it. Thomasmallen 17:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

THE EU IS A GLOBAL ECONOMIC POWER? cmon, most people in the east even in JAPAN AND CHINA, no body cares about the EU. This is just a desperate attempt by europe to claim the influence they had in the 1700s. Seriously, ask any cosmopolitan Japanese, there is a big probability that they have NEVER HEARD OR BOTHERED TO CARE ABOUT THE EU.


 * Maybe they don't think about European economies in terms of the EU per se, but people in Asia (at least the businessmen) are certainly aware of the size and importance of European markets. If you were trying to argue otherwise (it's not clear) then you are a fool. Historian932 (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are a troll, please, stop vandalizing wikipedia. -- giandrea   11:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Section 4
I can see there is much discussion about the inclusion of the EU in this list. I guess the mere fact that people argue its relevance is maybe because its not relevant at all. I vote to remove the EU on the list.

That's totally senseless... and sign your comments please. And the inclusion or exclusion is not decided by vote, but by consensus. -- giandrea   14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the difference between deciding by votes vs. consensus? Historian932 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're so offended by the EU being included on this list please seek therapy. It's pathetic, are some of you really that brainwashed?

It is pointless to include the EU on that list, if you are going to include one random union like that you might as well include all other unions from around the world, such as the AU.

The question is, does EU count as a single economic entity. It's about as much possible embargo a single EU country as it's possible to embargo Utah and EU sets trade barriers as a single entity, which isn't true for any other trade area (ASEAN, AU etc). As long as they can do that, I think it's important to measure and publish their economic weight. -Xargy

omg people! Of course UE must be included cause its an ECONOMIC UNION. As aforementioned it has its own constitution, flag, anthem blablabla that makes it a lot like a country than NAFTA or ASEAN. If someone doesn't want it cause it gets #1 and US follows thats another reason Soathana 09:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why the EU should be present here. This is a list of COUNTRIES and should be that way. All the discussions regarding the EU is complete rubbish. Nobody cares if its more than a trade union. ITS NOT A COUNTRY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.81.218 (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED

There is no arguement that could possibly justify why the EU should be counted here. This should be a list of countries and not pseudo-countries. Having a flag and a currency does not make it one. Please be educated about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.145.244 (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The EU is moronic they could not even agree among themselves if KOSOVO will be recognized. European Union the largest economy? Blah, even Japan is almost as big as the two top european countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.241 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Section 5
If the EU is included, its member nations should be removed from the list, or marked as "Part of the EU". Are the districts within the UK or the states within the US represented? The title of the article is "list of countries by GDP". The EU is not formally a "country". Therefore, including it at all is questionable. Certainly not as a country, and probably not actually in the list, but as a footnote. For the record, I think it's one thing to consider yourself a European, or a North American, or a West Hemispherean, but, like the European Union, no country by any of those names currently exists in reality, and none of them should be included in a list of countries by GDP. I think it's fine to list it elsewhere, in GDP articles which don't limit themselves to countries. For the record, NAFTA has a flag (and committees!). Michael.meseke (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The question on my mind is why the hell does it matter? Why do you care if the EU is listed and why would anyone be so strongly opposed to it? Personally I think it's informative and useful information, regardless of whether or not it's a real country. The world isn't a country either, but we still list it at the top of the lists. Listing the EU doesn't take away from anything, it doesn't detract from the usefulness of the article, set any bias or otherwise compromise the credibility of the article in any way. what's the problem? Also, regarding the CIA list, they even list the EU on their own site, so you have no right to detract from their list based on your own political agenda.Sbw01f (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Debate" does not turn the EU into a country; the title of this article includes the word "country"; there is no debate here.nateschmoll (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There's not much to debate here. The European Union is NOT a country. Period. American jealously? Sure, sure, if that makes you happy then that is it (plus, I think a decently intelligent person would realize that the 200 million people advantage of the EU is more than enough to make it a bigger economy... that's not the case). The bottom line is, this is a list of countries and the EU is legally not a country, from any perspective. Now if you want to make a list of political bodies by GDP, a list of organizations by GDP, a list of federations by GDP or something like that, that's PERFECT, but EU isn't a country. This is an unbiased encyclopedia, correct? Then let the reader compare the EU economy to the rest of the world if he/she wants, but don't force that unnecessary comparison into the article. Andres07 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The world isn't a country either but still gets included because of its relevence. In economic terms the EU has a similar status to a country. If you want to set up a trade agreement then it has to be done with the entire union. No other super-national organisation has achieved the same level of intergration. josh (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The person who wrote "The world isn't a country either but still gets included because of its relevence." (right above) is a mental retard. He does not understand that TOTAL and WORLD are interchangeable and are meant to represent one or the other or as a total of all the values. Its amazing joshurtree has a mental capacity to even understand what he is commenting at.

Discussion and consensus will not hide the fact that the EU is not a country. If it were functioning as one country and not only as an economic entity, then EU member states could not and should not function independently in the international stage. We don't have a CALIFORNIA EMBASSY in Japan now do we? How about a UTAH Embassy in Nigera? Please understand what you are talking about before posting nonsense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.6 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about the POV tag added in June 2008

 * And this is the point, the agenda exists on the pro-EU side, because this group has an axe to grind. The entire purpose of the EU was to compete with the US, but certainly not on equal terms.  Where is their constitution?  The US is #1 because IT EARNED IT!  It was hard work, over 200 years of it.  It didn't happen because 50 states suddenly put themselves under an umbrella agreement so they could say their "ecomonmy" was #1.  Like Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."  If the EU wants to pretend its #1, well fine but we know the truth, and so do you. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 13:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

EU is a valid country..... in dreamland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.6 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

♠Please, someone who believes the EU really belongs in THIS article provide me with valid proof that the EU is a country. I await your sourced response. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 11:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As the cia puts it "Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense...it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations". josh (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * THIS article is a list BY COUNTRY, and as such should remain pure. The EU can be placed on other lists.  I don't care what the CIA says, if they say the EU is a country they are wrong period.  This is Wikipedia, not the CIA.  It should be removed from this article.  It is plain that many others think likewise.  Why is it important to list the EU??  It isn't, that's the second point. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 13:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) But we are citing the CIA, Worldbank, and the IMF. They provide these lists like we report them here. It's not up to us to push our POV. This is what it would mean to me, if we reported the lists selectively. Tomea s y talk 13:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe." Here, straight from the article on the European Union. Is this clear enough??? I believe anyone who cannot comprehend this is showing bad faith. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 13:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) A small plea. Let's have this discussion more friendly. Tomea s y talk 13:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The EU was created by the Maastricht Treaty. "A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law...". Therefore it is not a national or federal agreement such as the US Constitution. "The EU is based on a series of treaties which have built up the current structure by successive additions and amendments." Where is their constitution? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 13:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Of course, the EU is not a country in the sense of a sovereign state, but this also applies to many other entries on the list. Why this emotional debate just over the EU. After all it is just interesting to see its combined volume as, in most aspects, it is a single market. People who are interested in the list will often find this information very interesting, too. Especially when they see that EU's GDP is almost equal to that of the US, while the latter one has a much smaller population :-) Tomea s y talk 13:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the EU stays, then the countries that make it up must go, or the 50 states of the US must be added. If we're going to change the definition of what a country is, then we will follow that definition to the letter.  People in this era have already trying to change our language to mean all kinds of things for political and other reasons.  We can't start bending definitions of the English language.  The CIA is wrong, and so is the IMF and the other outfit listed.  -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 16:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the analogous of keeping EU and EU member states would rather be to list the US and NAFTA. But our sources do not do this. Tomea s y talk 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The CIA, IMF and "the other outfit" are the sources of this article. If you consider them unreliable then put the article up for deletion because they provide the foundation of it. Wikipedia generally requires better evidence than "they are wrong". josh (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please try not to WP:Point. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 16:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you start reading policies before quoting them. I haven't disrupted Wikipedia in any way and don't appreciate being accused of it. I was pointing out that the sources that you are claiming are wrong are the same ones being used as the basis for this article. Without them we have no article. josh (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets end this conversation and just remove the EU. This is a list of Countries. Anyone who is pushing its inclusion in the list is TARNISHING THE CREDIBILITY OF WIKIPEDIA AS A FACTUAL INFORMATION SOURCE. As mentioned above, the EU itself stated that it is just an ECONOMIC COMMUNITY. Anyone who fails to understand this is just pushing their own agenda which is not helping the Wikipedia community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.47 (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this opinion of yours the reason that you repeatedly manipulate the EU data to the obviously wrong, thereby violating 3RR? Your actions are pure vandalism and your shouting simply matches this behavior. Tomea s y talk 16:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you were reading the discussion here in context, you wouldn't be trying to make that point. No one is arguing where the data came from or whether it is sourced.  We're talking about accuracy and maintaining definition standards.  No one has answer my question as to what makes the EU a country; but have admitted many times on here that it in fact is not.  If the CIA stated that the moon is made of cheese on their website, would you put it an article about the makeup of the moon as fact?  Speaking of policy, you removed at tag while discussion is ongoing.  It appears that you made the decision that you didn't want the tag there, but your action is wrong. I'm still waiting for you to prove that the EU is a country.  I haved demonstrated by words from its own article that the EU is not. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia uses the truth and not verifiability. If the CIA stated the moon was made of cheese and it was being used as the source for the article on the makeup of the moon then we would state the same. If you believe that the EU should not be included on the list then please feel free to supply a source that doesn't include the EU. To removed sourced content would be deceit by omission.


 * The pov tag is for use when an article violates NPOV. That is to quote the policy in question -
 * content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources
 * What part of that policy is this article meant to be violating. josh (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If this is true, please discontinue. I could have made the changes I propose without asking, but that is edit warring, so I have approached it this way.  The inclusion of the EU can only be viewed as political, there is no other logical rationale.  Don't tell me someone else listed it, you are no obligated to use their entire list, especially with errors. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

♠ After more research I have found that the EU is not listed at the link provided for the IMF data at Source 1, nor is the EU an IMF member. The EU is listed as a country group on their site, along with the Commonwealth of Indepedent States, Africa, the Middle East and central and eastern Europe. So in fact the case is made for the removal of the EU from the list by the article sources themselves. Furthermore, the EU is not listed on the List of countries. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 18:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is listed with the countries at the other two sources and available at the IMF. This changes nothing. josh (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the big problem having the EU in the list? Obviously it is interesting to have this comparison. Whom does it hurt? It is not a country according to certain definitions, but neither is the World or French Polynesia. Is their mentioning also a big problem? The fact that these buddies (EU, World, French Polynesia) appear in our sources shows that they are of interest to people who are consulting such lists.
 * I have seen tens of discussions on various talk pages about the question what is a country?. Is this ill-defined, or at least blurry term really the only objection here? Should we censor interesting content from our key sources just because, when being extremely neat-picky, they do not match exactly the way we understand the title of the article? Then rather propose a different title, or better, leave things as they are.
 * After all, selecting ourselves which countries from the lists in the sources to accept and which ones to reject would mean POV to me. I think this is understandable, even if the mentioning of the EU as a country appears disturbing. Tomea s y talk 19:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a shameful attack against the credibility of wikipedia. EU is not a country from every source that is credible. Even the EU itself acknowledges it is not more than an economic community. Failure to understand that this is a list of "countries" is a failure of that person's unbiased logical comprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.47 (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC) my name is Bob

Europe and EU are _not_ Countries
Either the title needs to change or EU needs to be removed from the list: either way, there's an inherent inconsistency in the title and subsequent rankings. Even the IMF denotes a blank for country ranking. EU is the largest economic amalgamation. The USA is still the largest country in terms of GDP.

I'm assuming the only reason why the EU is mentioned here as "country" is because it has a larger GDP than the USA. Wiki is loaded with europhile anti-Americans. It's really a disgrace, and unfortunately leads to fabrications, misleading information and outright lies. Wiki is a joke! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.205.130 (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason they're listed is because these lists are based on data from other sources, and those sources list EU along with every other country. At least, that's true for the CIA list, I haven't checked the other two myself. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. Sbw01f (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So you just parrot their lists? Why not just put a link up to them instead of show them here?  Conserve disk space on the Internet.  If they list your mom as fat would you include that too because it's on their list?  So some judgement man!  Just because they are wrong, doesn't mean Wiki has to be wrong too.  -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 02:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The EU is not a country. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the EU is definitely something more than just an organization of economic cooperation.It is almost a federation. But still its is not a country, it does not have a constitution (which was rejected by the French and Dutch) which would have given it the powers that would make us think of it as a country, and the second thing, the Lisbon treaty which could have possibly given it more of a "country power" and "country like" decision making system was rejected by the Irish referendum. It is a serious organization but in no way should it be listed among countries.I do understand that there are a great number of EU supporters and it is worth mentioning that they are on wikipedia in very large numbers as well, but I think it should not be there. On the other hand we should not let this whole thing become a matter of anti-American sentiment. I would not recommend anyone pushing the EU issue forward just because it has higher GDP than the United States.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation
There is a dispute regarding including the GDP figures for EU in this list. The dispute includes discussion on the EU's status as a country. Possible outcomes from a discussion on this issue are:
 * 1) The EU remains in the list as it is at present (unranked, but presented as a comparison in the same way as The World is presented as unranked, simply for comparison).
 * 2) The EU remains in the list as it is at present, but with a footnote explaining that the EU is not a country, but the figures are presented for comparison.
 * 3) The EU remains in the list as it is at present, but with a sentence in the lead section explaining that the EU is not a country, but the figures are presented for comparison.
 * 4) The list is renamed to better define the aims and intentions of the list. New: Possible title List of world economies by GDP (nominal).
 * 5) The lead section is rewritten to better define the aims and intentions of the list - and in such rewriting the inclusion or exclusion of regions such as the EU is made explicit.
 * 6) The EU is removed from the list.
 * 7) The EU is classed as a country and is included in the rankings in the list.
 * 8) New:  The EU is placed at the bottom of the list, unranked, and with a footnote explaining its inclusion.

More than one outcome is possible. Other outcomes are also possible, and may emerge during discussion.

Discussion
Please do not edit your opinion here anymore, please use Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-12 List of countries by GDP (nominal) instead. This Mediation Cabal will be the decision point for any of the options provided here. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would prefer the discussion to be in one place. I have decided that discussion should take place here on the talk page, and this is where I have invited people to come. I have amended the Mediation Cabal template I placed at the top of the page to direct people to this discussion point. I would also ask that if anyone wishes to make alterations to the format of this mediation they come to me first. I am striking out the above comment and placing an informal reprimand on Miguel.mateo's talkpage.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is not set up as a vote, but that does not prevent anyone from simply voting for an outcome if they wish to.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have given many arguments on the respective talk section Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal). i would really not like to repeat all of them here. Therefore, let me simply state that any of the options 1 to 5 is fine for me. Tomea s y talk 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The EU entry will be presented unranked on top of the list, like it was. Lear 21 (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It should remain as it was, unranked in the top of the list ... anything else is hiding the real truth. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the real truth, Miguel; please tell us. Why unranked at the top of the list?  Why not at the bottom; but again not at all. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 12:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I support option 6, remove EU from the list. It is not a country. See further discussion in Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-12 List of countries by GDP (nominal). Truthanado (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A number of issues I feel need addressing here.
 * No-one is arguing that the EU is a country. Thats the reason it is not given a rank. It not the only member of the lists in this position. Several overseas territories also feature as well as the world figure. These have never been taken issue with.
 * The EU is included alongside countries by the CIA and World Bank.
 * The reason interest in the EU is taken by the World Bank and the CIA is that it operates as a single unit in trading terms. You cannot embargo or setup a trade agreement with any country within the EU. All trade talk must take place with the EU itself. Also the EU itself chooses whether to embargo another country. This centralisation is also spreading to other areas. josh (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support options 1,2, or 3. The EU is an economic power block with some unique country like properties (tax laws, currency, etc.). Therefore comparison with the EU is relevant and wortwhile. The effect of options 4 and 5 are very unclear to me, so I cannot say what to think now. Option 7 (number addition) is unacceptable to me as this would result that the EU countries are in the list twice (ie as contributing to the EU GDP but also separately). This would make the rankordering unusable as every entry after Germany would be shifted down a position due to duplicate inclusion of Germany. Arnoutf (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The EU does not have a centralized trade and decision making system does not matter how hard you may argue - although it has substantial powers to Regulate - but not completely control. Countries are often in disputes with each other because of different economic projects.
 * For example when Germany decided to be partners with Russia and tried to build a pipeline that goes around Baltic States and Poland, those countries protested and raised the issue on the council saying that Germany had to place them above Russia as they are all members of the EU,but nothing happened. They were ignored and Germany did what it wanted to do - the EU did not and could not do anything.


 * If you think that building a 5bl pipeline ignoring others' interests and the EU as whole is not a serious economic/energy security matter, then what do you think is enough for them to jump in and tell them that its not the right thing to do? josh what you said - "EU is included alongside countries by the CIA"- is simply NOT true. It is not included ALONGSIDE but at the very very BOTTOM of the list. You are not the only one who has the access to the CIA website and everyone can clearly see that it is definitely not alongside. The world should be on top and unranked (just like on CIA list) and the EU should be at the bottom (like in CIA list) and unranked and with a NOTE explaining why is it even there.on the CIA list that you provided it is definitely listed alongside countries but its is just because its arranged in alphabetical order. On the main list that redirects to individual countries, It is on the bottom.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) What do you mean Geographyfanatic? I see for example this ranking in the CIA factbook. Admitted, it is for PPP and not nominal, but I think that does not make a difference to the question at hand. Perhaps you can past a link to show what you have meant. In the example above, the CIA even ranks the EU with all limitations accorded to this treatment that Arnoutf has explained. Tomea s y talk 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not the list I was talking about. I was talking about the main list where you chose the countries. Not the GDP list. Even if on that list it was listed alongside countries that does NOT make it a country and the CIA is not the only resort that could help determine what it really is. The fact is that the EU does not have a "country like" decision making model, and that the economic decision making system is completely flawed is clear.larger countries mostly always get their way though even if others protest. The constitution was rejected, the lisbon treaty which was a plan B and which would give the EU serious powers and make it one step closer to being some sort of federation was rejected by voters as well. Now at this point I do not believe that listing EU is the right thing to do does not matter what CIA says. The reality is something different.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with options 1-3. I don't think anyone is going to confuse the EU for a country, but even so, adding a note and not ranking it is simple enough. I think it's useful for comparison sake, for the same reason we list the world. Perhaps another option could be to add all non-countries (The World, all continents and the EU) below the list or in the lead or something? Just a suggestion. Sbw01f (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is listed shows that it's already been confused for a country. I don't think it is useful whatsoever for comparison. Comparing apples and oranges. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 11:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is definitely not the case, I think everyone is really clear that it is not a country, and what we are arguing about is how useful this information indeed is, for comparison of course. It is not comparing apple to oranges as you mentioned.  Please bring the discussion to the Mediation Cabal.  I must say though, please look for references all over the web, media, books ... etc: talking about a economic indicator like GDP, without mentioning the european union just because is not a country, does not make sense to me.


 * The above edit does not belong to me, it was left unsigned by someone--Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As it was previously mentioned by other editors and me as well, the European Union is a SUI GENERIS (unique, of its own kind) organization. We all agree that there is no other organization similar in its powers and system to the EU. If so, then why wont we make a separate chart where the EU will be listed all by itself and with nothing else in it. It does not sound right? well, I am sorry but if its only of it kind than I do not believe that it can be placed with other things that are "not of its kind". I guess the EU is the only specie in the group, so let is be listed separately, and alone.Other proposed "solutions" will not make sense.They will contradict the all accepted belief that the EU is unique.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of this debate misses the mark. I tend to agree that since the EU is sui generis, it should somehow be included. But I also think some here are too narrowly trying to limit this to "country" and hold wikipedia to a standard that the source lists themselves do not apply.

What do those who compile the lists say?

The IMF has a list of countries and a list of "countries" and "selected country groups" of which there are only two listed: "world" and "European union." Clearly, the IMF feels that while not a country, the EU needs its own listing. The CIA has, under "country," the European Union, and no other regional entities. The World Bank lacks a listing for the EU. Therefore, since we are not here to second-guess the sources, we should leave the EU on the page for those who list it. (Although the figures for the World Bank don't seem to match what we have here - is there another updated WB source?)

Bottom line here, is it is not our place to arbitrate what others who compile these lists have decided. Since 2 of 3 list the EU as either a "country" or an entity uniquely positioned to warrant a GDP figure, we should retain the EU here, though without rank. If there is no updated source from the WB which lists the EU separately, we should not engage in original research by adding up national figures to supply that GDP on the third list, we should omit it.

Arguments about what defines a "country" and whether some here want the EU here to "diminish" the United States are interesting but somewhat irrelevant as, as I have noted, the sources have come to their own conclusions. If one wants to argue about the CIA's definition of "country" being so broad as to include the EU, well that is one to take up with the CIA, not wikipedia. They list it that way, so it is entirely appropriate to list the EU here. Canada Jack (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point; interpreting the sources to our own advantage is dangerous. By the way, did anyone notice that the list also contain several other non countries such as "Hong Kong" and "West Bank and Gaza". So I would suggest any conclusion from this debate to be applied to all non-countries in the lists equally. Arnoutf (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We all know who is interpreting the sources in their own advantage Arnoutf. I know that the EU should have a separate chart and listed in a separate place because it is a unique organization (I'm tired of repeating that) and Hong Kong and other entities are not anywhere close so its impossible to make your case out of this. I would make a separate list for Hong Kong and the likes but I would list the EU somewhere else separately. I dont know what the CIA says, but I know that this is not a cia website and if they dont wish to have categories, we do.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please try to hear what I am saying. I say that if (and only if) we find a compelling argument to remove the EU because it is not country, in that case we should remove ALL non-countries (perhaps with an exception of the world). Otherwise the removal of the EU is a non-neutral point of view (you might consider it EU bashing if you want). I have never suggested to combine Hong Kong and EU in another article at all; I only suggest that we are consistent in whatever decision we reach for this article. Arnoutf (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

♠ Two of the three sources do not list the EU as a country, and those two are financially oriented organizations. Here is a listed from the World Bank. The EU is no where to be found. I have already shown that the IMF lists it under "country group" with other regions. The EU is not a member of the World Bank or the IMF. The argument, that the definition of a country is irrelevant, is specious and should be disregarded. If this were true, then the entire article would be irrelevant and we wouldn't be here arguing the point. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 12:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Then here is the compromise. The CIA lists the EU as a "country," so we list it here. The World Bank does not, so we don't list it there. And I'd say since the third source saw fit to note the EU's GDP and none other we list it (after all, the "world" is not a country either and we list it).


 * The very fact that each of the three already include entities like Hong Kong which are not countries, and the number of "countries" represented vary in each list means that everyone is applying different standards, as they are in how they measure GDP itself. It is not our place to pick and choose who shall be listed and who shall not be listed. The criterion should be: If it appears on the source's list, then we put it on the list.


 * Frankly, I don't really see what the problem here is. Two of three sources saw fit to measure the EU separately. So simply enter what those two say the EU is. The third doesn't, so don't list it. Canada Jack (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I have to tell you that you are bitterly wrong.First of all I do not believe that just because EU is listed by those organizations it means it is a country.(and I honestly believed that we were over that "country" issue but I guess you have not followed the discussions carefully). I believe that the information that can be found on wikipedia is NOT and Should NOT be a COPY of information in some other websites and organizations. Wikipedia has its own structure, system, its own "brains" and it is not just a copy of something else. I honestly would not recommend anyone copying anything and putting it here in futile attempts to "contribute" something to the website with an ambition to be neutral. --Geographyfanatic (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The point should be, in terms of wikipedia, not what the definition of "country" is, but what the sources list. To apply your logic, then we'd first have to define for the purposes of wikipedia, what a "country" is, then apply it to the three lists in question, omitting the various entities which do not fall within that definition. Since the three lists are 179/180/190 countries in length, we'd have some pruning. Also, all three lists have entities, such as Hong Kong, Gibralter, etc., which I am sure meets no one's definition of "country" and would have to go.

But the beauty of wikipedia is we don't resolve the debate, we describe the debate. Go to the JFK assassination page. What is the "truth"? The truth is that JFK was murdered and there are various interpretations as to how that came about. The "truth" isn't that the Mob did it and everyone is in denial.

Here, is the "truth" that "Country" is defined as "x" or is the "truth" that three reputable sources define "country" in different ways and therefore some lists include territories and some don't, and some seem fit to include entities which clearly are not countries? I'd say wikipedia is the latter. It is certainly our place to note the debate, that the debate exists. It is not our place to declare, one way or the other, that this is the "right" answer. Canada Jack (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * AND, we would have to dig up and add the numbers for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles (latter two are not even in a monetary union with the larger country they are part of as they don't use the Euro); because these ARE countries although part of a larger country, and are not listed in this overview. (I am pretty sure there are more examples of such countries but understand me right, I do not suggest to add these entities, I am only showing what the result of rigorous logic without reflection might be). Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see how this works. You keep saying something over and over as though you're not reading what people are saying until they give up? I already showed that the IMF does not list the EU as a country, period, yet you keep trying to have it listed. Furthermore, don't tell me we have no right to say what is correct and what is not; that is intellectual dishonesty pure and simple. Wikipedia is not about being politically correct, and trying to muddle up the definition of a country. If I go to Germany, I know whom with I speak....a German. The IMF listing of the EU as a country IN THIS ARTICLE could be called a lie, but we'll say it's an error. In every way possible it is wrong. Two out of three sources in this article are a consensus that the EU is not a country. Take it out of the lists, and place it in another article, OR at the bottom with a note stating it is not a country. And what about this business or being "in terms of wikipedia"; what the heck does that mean? Let me tell you, it means nothing at all unless you want to call it original research. This tactic of trying to make the EU into a country or country-like is growing tiresome. It is wrong, intellectually dishonest, insulting and not Wikipedia in any way, shape or form. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 16:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ??? Founder, I frankly don't know where you are coming from. The IMF doesn't list the EU as a country, but the CIA does, at least for the sake of their GDP list. Period. Clearly, this rankles you, but that is what the source has. I agree, for the sake of the IMF list, we should not have the EU. AS for what is "correct" that is your opinion, and quite clearly, others differ with you on this page and more to the point at least one of the sources does not agree with you. Again, you are arguing for a definition here when it is not our place to arbitrate. Since the sources are not in agreement, the simple solution is not to "resolve" the dispute, but to note it. And to list the EU where is is listed as "country" and not where it is not. Hong Kong is clearly not a country, but it is on the list. I had an e-mail with someone else and as for the ranking issue, the CIA lists alphabeltically, so the EU isn't "ranked," and the other source has it on a separate list, which to me suggests we do not rank the EU, but we do put it at the top.


 * I also sense you are over-reacting to this issue, when the answer here is quite simple, quite clear. Put the EU on top with the world with the two sources who note the GDP. Do not "rank" the EU as none of the sources, as far as I can tell, rank it. The CIA "country" list is alphabetical, not numerical. Since the top of the lists say "world" which, last I checked, is not a "country," I see little problem in listing the EU there as well, as the other source does precisely that. Since they don't additionally list, say, NAFTA, we are on firm ground in that we aren't being arbitrary in what trade blocs are listed. None of the others are listed.


 * So, in the end, we see at the top of the CIA and the second list, the EU, and the third list, which does not rank the EU, has a blank space. In terms of numerical rank, since the EU is not ranked numerically on the two lists, neither do we. (I'd quibble that the CIA list doesn't rank it numerically, but I think that passes.)


 * And what about this business or being "in terms of wikipedia"; what the heck does that mean? Let me tell you, it means nothing at all unless you want to call it original research.  This tactic of trying to make the EU into a country or country-like is growing tiresome.  It is wrong, intellectually dishonest, insulting and not Wikipedia in any way, shape or form.


 * What it means is we don't apply our criteria to sources who have applied other criteria. It means that your argument for "country" notwithstanding, the source puts the EU in their list and we don't simply ignore their determination. The compromise here is that I can see no compelling argument to rank them as none of the sources do that. But two do list the EU, therefore it should be here. What is "intellectually dishonest" is trying to pretend we can apply a single standard to an issue like this when even the main sources are not in agreement. In my opinion, several of the sources recognize the importance of treating the EU as a special entity and thus deserving of a calculation of their GDP, if not a place in the rank. I'd say that that is a pretty reasonable approach here - list the world (which, I emphasize is not a "country") and the EU, then the ranks. On two of the the three lists. Which means, as it stands, omitting the EU GDP from the one list as it is not, as far as I can tell, listed separately. Canada Jack (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Canada Jack for the clear analysis; I completely agree, leave out if the source leaves out, report if it does. To Founder, be careful with analogies as they are seldom a one-sided blade. If you go to Edinburgh, who do you meet.... I would guess a Scot Arnoutf (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Canada Jack, we ALL agree that the EU is a special entity, and we ALL agree that it is not a country, and we ALL agree that it should be mentioned somewhere on the page, but what we are saying is that it has to be in a different CHART. It is a unique, special organization and let it be the way it is in its OWN unique chart, in a Unique location on the page.(by the way I have been personally attacked for using unique just "too often")That is what we are saying, your answer is probably NO because you want this "special organization" in the chart with countries and other entities that are not "of its kind".Well by that you are contradicting yourself and your own and generally widely accepted belief that says that the EU is a unique case.
 * Our question is: If you believe the EU is unique and the only of its kind, why not place it in its own unique chart separately from things that are NOT "of its kind" ?
 * Please answer the question and do not repeat the same thing over and over. If you believe that the Loooooooooonger comments you write, the more we will APPEASE you, you are absolutely wrong.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because placing the GDP (an economic property) of a unique entity (that has economic properties of a country) in the same table as countries (ie non-unique entities, but with similar economic properties) makes it much easier to compare the GDP of that unique entity with other countries. This is (in my opinion) in this specific case very useful as economics is the one place where the EU has several country like properties. Placing it apart would make comparison much more difficult for the reader. (The same argumentation holds for HongKong and the other non-country entries by the way) Arnoutf (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "unique entity (that has economic properties of a country)"??? As I already mentioned many times, despite the fact that the EU has very serious rules and abilities to regulate the economy, it is not completely in charge of economy and many countries often ignore some of the rules and they themselves have the ability to make serious economic decisions too. That is especially true if we are talking about large countries which always get their way through does not matter what happens. Also, "comparison is more difficult to the reader"? I dont know what is so difficult about it, look at the number and then look back at the other number, its like you have two things on one piece of paper and you have to compare the two. and Maybe for those "readers" it is more difficult to deal with the fact that the US is still on top? Maybe that is the case? who knows....--Geographyfanatic (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would prefer option 2 or 4, with 2 being the more conservative option. As I see it, the purpose of the list is not to show that "mine's bigger than yours", but to compare the size of the major world economies. This is not served by excluding the EU, or by putting it out of sequence. Claiming the EU is a country would be plain wrong. Option 1 would be ok, but the extra bit of information might be useful for some people. Option 3 is functionally equivalent to 2, but I think a footnote makes the information clearer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh....where does it say "major world economies"? First sentence, second paragraph plainly states the list contains MEMBERS of the IMF.  The EU is not a member. You would exclude major asian economic groups, the Middle East, NATO, the UN and other entities formed by treaties (i.e., non-countries)? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then change that sentence (which, by the way, only refers to the first of the three lists). Don't let unfortunate formulations get in the way of producing the most useful data format. Yes, I would accept any notable economic group with a similar level of economic integration as the EU (i.e. a common market with free movement of labour, goods, services and money, and with common regulations) in that list. NAFTA might be a candidate but as far as I know it does not have a common labour market, or even common regulations). The NATO and the UN are obvious nonsense, as they do not form coherent economic units. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, that is what the entry says. And after searching the IMF site, I fail to find a reference to this claim - that the list is for members of the IMF only. The problem is there are 185 members, yet the list is of 180 (including Hong Kong). A further problem with this claim in the heading is that the IMF says this in terms of its country data: Note: 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.


 * It would seem, therefore, that the IMF is not limiting themselves in considering the variations of economies that you wish to do so here. It would also seem that to omit the EU figures would be arbitrary as the IMF itself explicitly does not limit its figures - which we are using - to "countries."


 * Another problem presents itself, and that is the IMF policy towards the Euro Zone. Since 15 (soon to be 16) member countries use the euro, and only member countries can be consulted under Article IV of the IMF, a special case has been given for the ECB for observer status at the IMF, commencing in 1999 with the creation of the euro zone (then 11 members). So, while, technically, the IMF consults with the 15 member nations one-to-one, in practical terms, it considers the euro zone as a separate entity. While I recognize that the 15 (soon to be 16 in January) members of the zone are not the same as the 27 members of the EU, it is important to note that things even at the IMF are not so clear-cut.


 * Further, while your question as to why we should include the EU and not the other asian economic groups makes some emotional sense, the fact of the matter is the IMF in fact does record the EU economy as a separate entity and compiles figures for it, while it does not for the others.


 * And still further, again, I have to point out that the CIA also is careful to note that it also uses a rather loose definition of what it considers to be "country" on its various lists. Canada Jack (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The presence of the EU entry in this list documents the unique position the European Union holds in the world. The EU possesses many country like features most significantly in economic terms. This has led to official attendance at G8 summits, WTO conferences and UN meetings. The EU and its unique, unparalleled character has led to the inclusion by other statistical sources like the CIA WFB, IMF and the Worldbank. Therefore the EU entry is justified to remain as a ranked entry without a ranknumber. There will be no other stable solution. Lear 21 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Lear 21 :The EU should go to the bottom of the chart with no ranking and with an explanatory note . that is the only solution that I will support.Also it is worth mentioning that being "unique,unparalleled character" does not necessarily mean that it should be included.There are two sides of that.There are people who think that exactly because it is Unique, it should be excluded and put in a separate "unique chart", but people did not wish to do that because they thought it "would make it harder for readers to compare data in two separate charts", although they never stated why would it be hard for them to do that.But you probably did not read what all those people said. Your conclusion is definitely out of touch of the entire, intense discussion that we had in here for last two days. Next time please be more prepared and be open to different ideas rather than just making some blunt statements--Geographyfanatic (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you still desire the explanation (I thought it was self evident). Two reasons: (1) Shopping in two different shops will require more effort, hence is more difficult the same goes for looking in two tables (although the effort is obviously less, it is still more). (2) Comparing information that is rankordered on the relevant quantity (here GDP) does convey information in two ways. A the numeric information (ie the number) which can be processed elaborately (ie with a lot of effort) to come to an idea about the influence of the country. B The location in the order, which is a heuristic that conveys the relative position in relation to other countries (which can be interpreted with much less effort). Placing the number in a separate table (or at the bottom for that matter) will remove the second source of information, hence makes comparison harder. Arnoutf (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright,I understood all that but for people who did not get what all these useless parenthesis meant, here is the translation: Arnoutf says that it is hard to look at one chart and then compare it to the data on the other chart on the very same page. Hmm, interesting indeed. My response: ok but shopping in a different shop would be a legitimate explanation only if we placed the second chart on another page ( a different shop) when in reality we are asking to place it on the same page.So that metaphor does not work in this case. Also, Arnoutf wants people to see "relative position in relation to other countries", translation: briefly he wants it to be with the United States to make sure that people see whose economy is larger despite the fact that EU is still not a country. Arnoutf, here is something I want you to know: If you think that comparing two adjacent charts on the very same page is hard, could you please tell us what would be "easier"? maybe we should unite all three existing charts and maybe we should even bring other charts from other pages as well, so that people dont have  to click on things and they dont even have to bother to look on the side of the page?--Geographyfanatic (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I find Arnoutf's points well made and yours ...let's say "less so". What's it with "with the United States"? Who cares? I think there is a serious failure of WP:AGF here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is unbelievable, I have been attacked so many times in last two days, I have been made fun of as being unknowledgeable because of supposedly "taking" some terms for certain people and I guess I dont have a good faith according to you. I was not the one who brought the United States in this discussions. Many users have mentioned that before me and they know better than me what is going on. "Who cares"? - there are many people who do. Just take a look at THIS, this is so cynical, why are they making such emphasis on Americans? they are the ones who brought this whole national issue to the light. Dont blame others -  get to know the facts my friend--Geographyfanatic (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you see the smiley next to that remark? It's a joke, laugh! And no matter who makes this into nationalistic gaga, that's no reason for or against the inclusion. I've stated my opinion. It does not depend on who shares it, or who opposes it, for nonsensical reasons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Canada Jack, we ALL agree that the EU is a special entity, and we ALL agree that it is not a country, and we ALL agree that it should be mentioned somewhere on the page, but what we are saying is that it has to be in a different CHART.

If it was a matter of some here simply wanting to see the EU up there when the sources listed GDP only by country, I would agree that despite my preference to see the EU up there, we shouldn't list it. But that is not the case here, Geo, and that is our dilemma. It is not a simple matter of declaring what is or is not a country because the sources are not consistent on what they consider worthy of listing on the GDP chart.

Sure, the EU is a special entity, but that is why the sources are inconsistent in how they deal with this. It is not a reason, necessarily, to exclude the EU for the simple reason we aren't omitting others who aren't countries! For other entities in terms of how we list them, there seems not to be a problem. Seems we can quite readily accommodate "Hong Kong" or "Macau." Hell, the CIA list has Jersey and a mess of other places which few if any consider to be "countries," yet they are listed, even though they aren't on the other two lists. Why? Because the CIA saw fit to include them.

My solution is not to create a separate chart here, but to reproduce as faithfully as possible the various economic entities listed by the sources. It seems to me all that needs to be done is to omit the EU listing from the one source which lacks it, and possibly to make a note to state that there is no consistent application of what normally defines a "country" by the sources, hence the inclusion of the EU and the various territories.

Our question is: If you believe the EU is unique and the only of its kind, why not place it in its own unique chart separately from things that are NOT "of its kind" ?

The simple answer is a) a chart of 1 is not much of a chart and b) the others include it in an overall GDP count, therefore so should we.

As I already mentioned many times, despite the fact that the EU has very serious rules and abilities to regulate the economy, it is not completely in charge of economy and many countries often ignore some of the rules and they themselves have the ability to make serious economic decisions too.

This is fine if we are here to define "country." But we aren't. We are here to report what the sources say. And, as noted, there are numerous territories etc which fail by your definition to be "countries" and therefore should be eliminated if your criteria for inclusion was used. However, we are going by what the sources choose to list, not applying standards to the lists which they themselves don't apply.

''Maybe for those "readers" it is more difficult to deal with the fact that the US is still on top? Maybe that is the case? who knows''

Hmmm. As it stands, I see a #1 beside the United States on all 3 lists. The EU lacks a rank and I agree it should not have a rank. Is this really all about a pissing match between the US and Europe? Well, the US is on top on one list, and I think that is a fair compromise here. As Schulz says, the purpose is to compare respective economies and, like it or not, there is great interest in the size of the EU economy and it is often compared to the American one. If we were to, say, start inserting the eurozone economy, well I'd object as there is no separate listing. Same with NAFTA. But the sources, two of them at least, choose to list the EU separately. All I gotta say, Geo, is welcome to the 21st century.

Also it is worth mentioning that being "unique,unparalleled character" does not necessarily mean that it should be included.There are two sides of that.There are people who think that exactly because it is Unique, it should be excluded and put in a separate "unique chart", but people did not wish to do that because they thought it "would make it harder for readers to compare data in two separate charts...

Again, what guides us here at wikipedia should be what the sources have decreed. They no doubt had a similar discussion when it came to the EU, and for places like Hong Kong. And they came to varying conclusions. It seems to me quite a simple solution to rank everyone by GDP - and, by the way, "the world" isn't a nation either, so shouldn't we exclude that? - and give rank only to what are generally considered to be nations. And a simple explanatory note to state that the sources list entities which are not normally considered "countries" per se. Canada Jack (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussions about the inclusion of the EU in several Wikipedia lists and statistics has been innumerable. All arguments have been repeated more than thousand times. The result was and will be the same. Here is the ultimate argument: Please first remove the permanent EU seat from G8 summits, then we might start discussing a change from current EU-rank-in-Wiki-list-situation. Furthermore, try first to dissolve the EU single mandate in WTO talks and reinstall the 27 national mandates in this organization, this could, I repeat, COULD change the current stage. Unless these preconditions are not met, everybody is wasting time of all users involved, like it happened the last 2 years. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree Lear 21, Time is definitely wasted when we have to deal with this level of sarcasm.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder why is this relevant. Are personal comments no longer allowed?  We have not used that in this discussion.  Free of voice please.  I have also been personally attached (like here), when I have tried my guts to be very neutral, but in favor of keeping the EU ... isn't that sarcasm too?  And for the records, as it is obvious, I do not live neither in the US nor the EU. Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do believe that the EU should not be COMPLETELY removed, but I also believe that Totals are usually shown at the bottom of the chart,for example on the country population and area charts on Europe page.So I came up with this and I dont know what YOU think but to me it sounds like a fair solution. This way we will not place World, EU or other totals Above countries' and other entities gdps( a primary purpose of the chart). Totals should be below to somehow sum things up.

--Geographyfanatic (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem here, again, is that is not how the sources list it. To be consistent, we'd have to list all non-countries on a secondary list, since we include non-ranked entities within the bodies of the lists. Further, it seems more logical to have a descending order of figures since while the world figure is a sum total and could reasonably seen to be at the bottom as a sum, the EU is not.

It seems most consistent, given the nature of the sources, to rank in descending order by size of GDP, omitting the EU figure for the one source which seems to lack it. Canada Jack (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "It seems logical to have a descending order of figures"? I do not know where exactly you see the logic in that. And also "given the nature of the sources, to rank in descending order by size of GDP" does not make sense either what nature are you talking about. The sources do not tell us in which order to arrange things (ascending or descending)and by the way I think there is something that you do not understand. wikipedia as I already said is not an exact copy of its sources. Only thing we get from the sources is data and information.None of the sources tell us to go with ascending order or anything else.they Tell us the information and data and the rest is wikipedia prerogative.If we did not do it ourselves then I guess we could just make a link to their website and we would be done.The totals need to be on the bottom. Hong Kong might not be classified fully as a country but putting it with the EU is not a wise decision either thats in case you dont see the big difference between the two.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This chart was in "ascending" order and noone said it was illogical since the day of its creation,but now, after  I started talking about moving the EU to the bottom, now it became logical to be in "descending" order because of "nature" of some sources??. so do you want this whole chart to follow the EU back and forth, ascending, descending  or what ?--Geographyfanatic (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't you click the link Arnoutf showed you 2 days ago? FYI T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 19:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont know what link you are talking about.If you have any questions ask me it on my talk page and not here.If you dont have the answer to the questions that I posed in previous comment, then lets wait for the Canada Jack for him to explain why he thinks its logical for it to be in descending order because of some "nature" of sources.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is some confusion. The table was in 'ascending' rank order, the rank orders were in turn linked to a 'descending' order of GDP (ie highest GDP received rank no 1, not the lowest GDP). I am not sure what order Geographyfanatic has been referring to, and why, but the order has always been descending on GDP. Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree that there is a confusion.I never said anything about changing it to any other kind of order. It was Canada Jack who insisted that it should be in "descending order of figures" but he never specified what "figures" were exactly.He probably can not express clearly enough though brief comments, he better go back to writing the long ones just like he used to before.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem confused - the list as it stands is already in descending order, from the biggest numbers to to the smallest. Which makes eminent sense. I suggested changing nothing at all, except omitting the EU figure from the one source which seems to lack it. What you are suggesting is to arbitrarily pluck one entry from that list and put it at the bottom even though, logically, its place is at the top.

''by the way I think there is something that you do not understand. wikipedia as I already said is not an exact copy of its sources. Only thing we get from the sources is data and information.None of the sources tell us to go with ascending order or anything else.they Tell us the information and data and the rest is wikipedia prerogative.''

Such a condescending tone! You missed my point. My point was not that we have to reproduce what the sources say in terms of a descending order, my point was that to be consistent with your line of reasoning, we'd have to omit all the non-country entries and rank them on a separate list. And, since the sources define "country" and, for that matter "GDP" in their own particular way, it would be far more consistent to simply reproduce what figures they have come to than to, as you suggest, pick and choose who should be on what list or not.

To do so, you would have to establish that we can ignore the methodology of the sources, and to further arbitrarily decide what should be listed and what should be not. And when I say "arbitrary," I mean I see no movement to eliminate from the lists any of the other economic entities which are not countries. It seems clear that the real intent here is to apply a rationale which has the effect of ensuring that the United States is at the top of the list, even though most here agree that the coveted numeral "1" should not be replaced beside the US entry.

Hong Kong might not be classified fully as a country but putting it with the EU is not a wise decision either thats in case you dont see the big difference between the two.

I don't see the distinction. And neither do several of the sources. That is the point. And it's not just Hong Kong. It's Macua, it's The West Bank, Jersey, Greenland, etc. That's why this discussion is so ludicrous - the sources themselves don't pretend to be ranking "countries" in the normal meaning of that word, in 2 of 3 cases, and we shouldn't therefore be imposing a criterion on the data which the sources themselves don't apply! And we aren't talking about Mickey Mouse organizations here - we are talking about the IMF and the CIA. If they presumably have chosen to not be too particular about worrying about "countries" only being listed, why, prey tell, should we?

In the end, the lists are here so people can come by and make the comparisons. Some people want to know where Hong Kong ranks, or what the comparitive rank of the West Bank is to, say, Israel, or how big Greenland's economy is. And one of the frequent comparisons many want to make is to see how the EU ranks in comparison to the United States. You seem to want to pretend that it is about as interesting as comparing Asian blocs to other blocs. Maybe in your burg, but not in most other places. Now, I recognize that that is my personal preference, but it is also the preference of many here, and it is in fact the implicit preference of several of the sources - the calculation is made because the information for comparison purposes is seen to be desired. The other trade blocs are not here as the sources in question have not made the calculation, presumably, because there is no interest. What you are doing, in effect, is deciding for all here that there should be no simple comparison for the EU because "country" has to be defined so narrowly as to exclude hard-to-categorize entities. And the only real reason I see for you to do that is to specifically exclude the EU so as to ensure your favoured country is not bumped down by 1 on the list.

Too much here has gone on about the definition of "country," while ignoring how the sources themselves define it. And, the entire point of a ranked list is to see where others stack up against your country of interest. Since the sources define "countries" to also include other economic entities, there is no reason I can see why we need to impose a definition here that is not used by the experts themselves in compiling the lists. Other than to grind some nationalist ax. Canada Jack (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was Canada Jack who insisted that it should be in "descending order of figures" but he never specified what "figures" were exactly.He probably can not express clearly enough though brief comments, he better go back to writing the long ones just like he used to before.


 * Touche on the long remarks, but what is incomprehensible and confusing about the following?


 * It seems most consistent, given the nature of the sources, to rank in descending order by size of GDP, omitting the EU figure for the one source which seems to lack it.


 * I was simply making an argument for the status quo. If you were unsure as to what I meant by "descending order of figures," from the line that immediately preceded, that surely was cleared up when I specified "rank in descending order by size of GDP." Not sure how I could have been any more specific. Canada Jack (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The existing charts are entirely wrong. The difference in data is enormous. Only the top several countries' gdps are accurate. the smaller ones were made up I believe. Just take a look at CIA. and then look at the CIA chart on the page, countries like Ukraine, Latvia,Ireland,..... It is TOTALLY made up. Its from 2007 data, both on the real website and wikipedia chart as well. The difference is enormous.These whole page needs to be deleted and remade.I still have to look at World Bank data--Geographyfanatic (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are just a FEW examples of differences

Ukraine Real -320,100,000,000 	Chart says  - 131,200,000,000 Ireland Real - 185,500,000,000, chart says - 253,300,000,000 Latvia Real - 39,730,000,000, chart says - 27,000,000,000

That is mostly in the case of countries that someone thought were NOT important enough to be updated for years or were unimportant enough to be ignored and made numbers up for.All these people shamelessly provided the very same CIA reference to push forward their EU "plan" but NOT EVEN ONCE, they did not even once look at the chart and see if there were some problems. They do not care about the REAL problems, they do not care about making the article or wikipedia better. What a gang of Lobbyists ! I think this discussion is FROZEN and can not be and should not be resumed until ALL the made up numbers will be FIXED.This is a very serious strike on wikipedias Credibility.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear! Now you are taking part in this discussion now for about one week and you still do not see the difference between PPP and nominal exchange rate. You get this one wrong and compare data relating to different concepts. Hence, you conclude that the list must be wrong. Of course, what else ;-) Consequently, and this is sadly but apparently your nature, you have to relate these errors to bad faith of a "gang of Lobbyists !" All this in a post cluttered with bold face and shouting. It's a shame. Before you react: Go to the CIA webpage; choose one of the mentioned countries; scroll down to the Economy section; find the entry GDP (official exchange rate)--that's the tricky part; and see that the differences are not what you have stated above. They are orders of magnitude smaller, factually marginal. This margin is due to a necessary update. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 08:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tomeasy, maybe we ("the ignorants") do not see his/her lucid view of the topic, or maybe the CIA (another bunch of "ignorants"?) is wrong ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Question 1: Purpose
I believe the purpose of this chart is to list the GDP from the highest to lowest, GDP of countries and nothing else. The only exception is the world total GDP and that is how it should remain--Geographyfanatic (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What do people feel is the purpose of this list?

I believe the purpose of this chart is to list the GDP from the highets to lowest. Principally GDP's of countries but important economic united powers that extend beyond a country (such as the whole world and the EU) or are very specific parts of one (e.g. HongKong) should be included to give a frame of reference. Arnoutf (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See my comments above. While your opinion on what the purpose of the list may be of interest the fact of the matter is at least one of the sources in fact list the European Union under "country." To second-guess the source is not our business, just as it is not our business to second-guess the inclusion of places like Hong Kong if the source includes it. Indeed, since we have three slightly differing GDP lists, the implication is that there are at least three different criteria as how to measure GDP. We don't have a similar debate on what is the "proper" measure of GDP, we simply report what other acknowledged-to-be arbitrars have declared those figures (and who they feel should be measured) to be. Canada Jack (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Show the GDPs of countries as reported by the (currently three) most senior references: WB, IMF, and CIA. I think this is the great selling point of this article! Readers find the data they are looking for quickly and for more than one source. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 07:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The question assumes subjectivity in the article. It is merely a list of GDP by country. There is nothing subjective here. You cannot feel the purpose for this article. No one can accurately predict all the reasons that readers come to this article, it is simply data presented in a table. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 12:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since all three sources have differing numbers of "countries," and list entities which are not countries (like the EU and Hong King), you are clearly wrong, Founder. If this was truly a simple objective case of listing things by an agreed-upon definition, then we'd have the same number of countries. We don't. Therefore what is a "country" is subjective, and since at least one here lists EU as a "country," it seems that you are bent on applying a definition that the sources themselves don't apply. Which sounds like original research to me. It is not our place to simply declare that certain countries should be omitted because of our own arbitrary rule. Hong Kong is listed on all three, and it clearly is not a country. We should be simply reflecting what the sources we rely on say. Canada Jack (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you prove my case beautifully. I'm not wrong, because I contend that the EU is not a country, which you conclude in your comments (i.e., "list entities which are not countries (like the EU and Hong King").  A country is only subjective to those who use definitions, and the only arbitrary rule I see is the one you support.  Hong Kong should also be removed; if it's not a country it should go. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But Hong Kong is on the lists as a "country." What you are suggesting is applying your definition of "country" to omit entities which the sources see fit to list. I say just reproduce the lists. On wikipedia, we shouldn't be second-guessing our primary sources. Canada Jack (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Question 2: Negative impact
I believe that the EU should not be there among countries or on top, not just because it is not anything close to a country but also because it definitely does not have a "country like" decision making system and does not have the power to make its own political/economic policy without individual countries and without individual countries being in dispute with each other on many many different issues.It can regulate the economic policy, it can set serious standards and rules but in no way can it make the entire economic policy for all of the countries independently.Two attempts to give it several such more centralized powers - constitution followed by the Lisbon treay - have failed and have been rejected by the people of Ireland, France, Netherlands and would be rejected by many others if they were asked Also there are attempts to use this list as an arm in hands of anti-American, pro European editors. I do not want to accuse anyone of anything but the smell of trying to prove to be superior to the US (a sovereign state, country)is definitely felt in here.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the perceived NEGATIVE impact of including the EU in the list?

There is no negative impact of adding the EU, except for evoking some discussions on talk pages. Arnoutf (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As brief as this comment is, as precisely does it hit the point, IMHO. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 19:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

/Further Negative impact discussion here

Question 3: Positive impact
Positive effect is that people who will be interested in knowing EU total Gdp will be able to have that information. That is why EU should not be Completely removed. It should be listed but without rank, on the bottom of the page.
 * What is the perceived POSITIVE impact of including the EU in the list?

Positive effect is that people interested in the relative GDP of EU will have that information. It should be listed but without rank to prevent confusion about its country state, at the appropriate place in the list (ie ranked on GDP) Arnoutf (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Readers can learn the size of country economies relative to the EU. Some readers might be interested in this, after seeing the naked country list. Then they do not have to pull out the calculator or navigate to different sites to get this information. They will find the comparison clearly on one sheet. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 07:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

When people look at GDP of a country, they usually look, among many other things, at the impact of their currency, their interest rates, their "buying power" ... etc. Showing the European Union will be very beneficial, mainly because they use the same currency. Comparing individual countries economies to the economy of the European Union as a whole is a normal thing to do in economics now days. Even the GDP of the individual countries of the union is being measured against the GDP of the union. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

None. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 12:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, not all of them use the common currency yet. And the British dont plan to do that anytime soon I guess .--Geographyfanatic (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The presence of the EU entry in this list documents the unique position the European Union holds in the world. The EU possesses many country like features most significantly in economic terms. This has led to official attendance at G8 summits, WTO conferences and UN meetings. The EU and its unique, unparalleled character has led to the inclusion by other statistical sources like the CIA WFB, IMF and the Worldbank. Therefore the EU entry is justified to remain as a ranked entry without a ranknumber. There will be no other stable solution. Lear 21 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another unsubstantiated opinion. Blanket statements about the IMF and WB are wrong, as I have proven.  -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 16:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement1: The EU is not a country
Please sign.

Agree: Disagree:
 * 1) --Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 07:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC) However, with respect to global trading, it acts like a country, see WTO or G8.
 * 3) But of course is not ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, the EU is not a country (although I stand by my comment that this is a fact and no opinion of anyone telling the opposite will change this). Arnoutf (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC) (Moved by Mediator to correct place).
 * 1) Of course it is not a country. Read the first sentence in the EU article.Truthanado (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

All 3 statements are nonsense That the EU is no country is not open to discussion and plainly a fact; the same goes for monetary union for both EU and OECS. We can have a majority vote the moon is made out of cheese, but that will not make it so. Arnoutf (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since 2004 there has been a repeated debate about the status of the EU as a country and why it should or should not be in this article because of its status as a country. The debate goes in circles. I do not wish this mediation to go down the same roads. We need to establish and agree some common grounds, and get at the heart of the issue. There are some red herrings in this dispute - one of which is the status of the EU as a country. Let's get that one out in the open and see if anyone here feels that the EU is a country. Once we have established the status of the EU, we can look at other issues. This mediation process will be easier and quicker if people took part in a spirit of co-operation. Answer the questions, sign the statements. We'll make progress.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement 2: The EU is a Monetary union
Please sign.

Agree:
 * 1)  T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 07:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)The euro is an initiative of the EU. Although the participating countries in the EU and the eurozone are not congruent: every EU member state is basically eligible to join, and only EU members have a stake in the ECB, the bank directing the monetary policies of the eurozone. However, the EU is more than just a monetary union.
 * 2) Definitely it is more than a monetary union. However, once you decide to join the union, you have agreed to change your currency to the Euro, once a series of reforms are made in order to protect the currency.  This is not voluntarily, it is mandatory.  This means that you eventually will see Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czech, Slovakia (2009 so far), Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania (and any other future member) adopting the Euro; the question is 'when'.  Sweden is by definition forced to adopt the Euro as well, for them it is not 'if' but also 'when'.  The only exceptions are Denmark and UK because they joined the union when the previous rule was not in place.  The first one already has its currency pegged, so it is just a matter of time.  The later, we will have to see.

"Later" get the same currency? Well lets talk when they will actually join.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree:
 * 1) --Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC), not just a monetary union. And same currency is not used by all of the members yet.
 * 2) According to the EU article, it is a "political and economic community". Except for the title, it doesn't say anything about being united in a union. Truthanado (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement 3: The OECS is a Monetary union
Please sign.

I do not see the relevance. Who has put up this question for what reason? T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 07:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To see if there is an acceptance that there are other monetary unions, and if so, how that will impact upon considerations as to including the EU in the list. For example - people may say that the EU is not a country, but as it is a major monetary union it should be included - if so, what is the criteria for including the EU and not the OECS? There are interesting developments taking place here. An argument seems to be shaping that the EU should be included because it is "special" - if that is the case, then we need to establish what is special about it, and how it differs from other monetary units, such as the OECS. We then need to decide if that "specialness" is valid enough to include it in the List, and if that is the case, how to articulate that specialness in a footnote that everyone will understand and accept.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. I need to learn more about the OECS before giving my opinion below. In general however I would say that not every monetary union must be listed, if one is listed. Part of the specialness of the EU—which is in deed the turning point—is that it is listed in (at least) parts of the sources, while other monetary unions (we'll have to see how many there really are) are not. Moreover, I would argue not to reduce the EU and hence its in- or exclusion merely on its being a monetary union. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 11:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The EU is a monetary, an economic and increasingly a political union. So I am not convinced limiting this to only monetary unions will sufficiently inform on specialness. Arnoutf (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree:

Disagree:
 * 1) Nope. The OECS article calls it "an inter-governmental organisation", not monetary and not a union. Truthanado (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement 4: There are a number of financial entities in the list which are not countries
Please sign.

Agree:
 * 1) Due to the fact that there are varying definitions for the term country any list will either contain too many countries according to some definitions or to few according to others or both at the same time.  T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 07:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree:
 * 1) According to the Country article, a country is "a political division of a geographical entity". I see nothing in the list that does not fit this definition, except for the World and the EU. Truthanado (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect to all your comments in the past hours, let me first state the obvious--which you should actually be expecting to hear: Wikipedia definitions are not an appropriate reference to arbitrate wikipedia disputes. To the specific argument stated in your above disagreement: The cited definition is so vague that the EU fits very well in it. The EU is a political division of the geographical entity Europe. MOreover, why is the definition used on this article is so vague? Because the term country is always contentious. I've not been around here for long, but the discussion as to what is a country appears over and over again on very different articles. Anyway, I've already mentioned that generally a definition stated on wikipedia cannot be decisive for us here. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 07:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, as I posted below the sources themselves do not pretend their lists are of "countries" in the sense that some here want to impose upon this page:

The IMF: ''Note: 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 CIA:

"Country" names used in the table of contents or for page headings are usually the short-form names as approved by the US Board on Geographic Names and may include independent states, dependencies, and areas of special sovereignty, or other geographic entities.

As for the WB, as noted in the intro, the lists are for member countries only, it is not, nor does it pretend to be, an exhaustive list.

Therefore, to impose a definition of "country" upon this page, when the sources are clear that they themselves are not employing a strict definition, would be original research. Canada Jack (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Question 4: Monetary unions - positive

 * What would be the positive effect of including other monetary unions in the List of countries by GDP (nominal)?

More comparisson would be possible. However, I do not advocate doing so, because our sources do not do it either. If we want so, we can in deed create our own article for this purpose. The article in question should not loose its credibility as a compact summation of GDP country data as provide by three esteemed sources. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 07:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Question 4: Monetary unions - negative

 * What would be the negative effect of including other monetary unions in the List of countries by GDP (nominal)?
 * Including in "list of countries by gdp"? then it will be a list of monetary unions by gdp. Also if it will be there then we will have to remove all 27 Individual member states of the EU- we cant have them both. The EU is not just the monetary union and also it can not be compared to any other union in any part of the world, it contradicts the all accepted belief that EU is ONLY organization of its kind.I think here are some serious attempts to make something new up but I doubt that will be successful. I said it million times and I repeat, if it is SUI GENERIS organization then why is not it alone in its SUI GENERIS chart, in its SUI GENERIS location on the page?--Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, geography, even if your point is 100 per cent on the money, we should be applying only what the sources apply. It is not out place to second-guess what they have decided. Clearly, at least one does consider the EU to be a country, however illogical that may seem to you.

As I said above, like it or not, the CIA lists the EU under "country," therefore we should not arbitrarily decree that they are incorrect because they seem to have a different criteria for including the EU than you. As I also said, one of the other sources doesn't list the EU in the country list but does list it with the "world" GDP, so clearly they think it is important to note the EU's GDP but not any other trade body's. The final one does not, it seems, have a listing for the EU, so if the figure that we have on the page supposedly from them in fact is the product of a wikipedian's calculator, I say we should leave that one blank here. (Though the figures seem more updated than the linked source, so they may have the EU listed after all.)

In short, your arguments, even if compelling, are beside the point if the sources decided to include the EU figures. Perhaps we can make a note for the particular cases that source a) lists the EU under "country," and source b) under a different heading and source c) lacks a listing. Or perhaps we should simply note that each of the sources may have slightly different criteria for who appears on their lists just as they presumably (since the GDP totals are not identical) have different criteria on how to calculate GDP. Canada Jack (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jack, for the point with the WB list, which was new for me to consider. I think you are right with your judgment, even if that could potentially mean to remove the EU from this list. I would prefer a note in order to maintain integrity with respect to our references. However, I appreciate that there is a valid objection. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 07:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the meaning of words are in jeopardy, and the reputation of Wikipedia. Change the title of the article if the desire to include other entities exists. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 12:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect, Founder, I think we should all take a deep breath here. This isn't nearly as contentious as some are making this. The debate here reflects in part what the sources themselves are not in agreement on - what "countries" should be included on their lists? Like it or not, the CIA in their "country" column has between Ethiopia and the Falkland Islands (not a "country" either, btw) the European Union.


 * To me, reflecting this does not diminish the reputation of wikipedia. In contrast, it enhances it as we are sticking to our guns by reflecting what the sources say, and not what our particular prejudices desire. Sometimes that means including stuff that by our own personal criteria should not be here. I think the EU should be listed even though it is not a "country." But I am not willing to insert a figure that a source does not list. Therefore, we should list the EU from the CIA list, NOT list it on the World Bank, and I'd argue we should list it from the IMF site, as they saw fit to only list the EU and the World totals separately.


 * I think the basic error here is to spend too much time on trying to define "country." Simply put, that is not our mission. Our mission is to reflect what the sources say. And if we are to stick to that basic mission, we are forced to list the EU on at least one list. The solace for you should be that the World Bank does not list the EU and, I agree, neither should we.


 * I had a similar debate on the list of oldest people page, where there is a debate over how old people should be listed - by years/days, or by a day count. The latter is in fact more accurate, but in the end, my argument was that the sources list them by years/days and, even if the argument to go by days is compelling, we have to stick to what the sources say. And if you really have a problem with that, then appeal to the sources for a better system. In the end, the CIA might say, "yeah, the EU is not a country, but then again, neither is Hong Kong. But people want to know the figures, and we feel they should be included. But we don't want to call this 'list of economic entities' as that sounds stupid." It may be arbitrary, but as in life, things in life aren't always clear-cut.


 * As I also said earlier, all we really need to do is note that the various sources themselves aren't clear on who should or shouldn't be included. Besides, the premise of showing three lists itself implies that there is no clear agreement on what a "country" is (differing numbers of countries in all three) and how to measure GDP (the lists differ substantially, more so than can be accounted for slightly different times of measurement). Canada Jack (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok suggestion to rename the article to List of countries (but not countries that are part of larger entities even if they have their own coins) amended with the world, the European Union and some parts of countries that have some level of independence, as listed by the IMF, worldbank, and CIA ranked on GDP (nominal) reported in US dollars'. Sounds ridiculous. I agree. But that title covers the article..... Arnoutf (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Question 5: Other financial entities on the list
The IMF has its own definition of "country" as quite clearly stated on their website, all the more reason to not be so pedantic about how we define it...
 * Why are there other financial entities on the list which are not countries ranked? Examples - Hong Kong, Greenland, West Bank and Gaza Strip.
 * Because these entities are not independent (E.g. Hong Kong is part of China). They have some independence which makes them interesting for comparison (like the EU), but ranking them would mess up the ranking as this would imply parts of China (in the case of Hong Kong) would be counted twice, incorrectly shifting down every state named after it by one place (like would be the case for the EU). Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that Hong Kong fits the definition of a country. It is "a political division of a geographical entity". In addition, it has its own currency, judicial system, and (according to the 1997 agreement with the People's Republic of China) an independent government for at least 50 years. Truthanado (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I never meant these were no countries, only that they were not independent (Scotland (own parliament) and Aruba (parliament and currency) are countries (even in name)- and not listed) Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

''Note: 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.''

And here is what the CIA says on their site:

"Country" names used in the table of contents or for page headings are usually the short-form names as approved by the US Board on Geographic Names and may include independent states, dependencies, and areas of special sovereignty, or other geographic entities. Canada Jack (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And the World Bank:


 * These tables classify all World Bank member countries (185), and all other economies with populations of more than 30,000 (209 total)

Please note that the main criteria for the WB is not country per se but membership within the WB. So its list is not exhaustive. Canada Jack (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Reaching for an agreed summary so far
There's been some interesting, and mostly civil discussion so far. In terms of Wikipedia disputes this one has been remarkably well mannered with very few personal attacks.

It has been difficult to reach agreed statements as we are dealing with concepts such as "country" which appear to have no universally agreed simple definition. However, to move forward for a working solution, it is generally agreed that the EU is NOT a country in the way that most readers would acknowledge. There has been some discussion on the nature of other bodies included in the article, but not ranked. There has been no agreement about the status of these other bodies, but a rough consensus picked up from discussion is that these bodies are in the list because they are mentioned in at least one of the three sources. The way they are presented is that if a body does not appear in all three sources the body is not ranked, and is only included in the list related to the source. Their status as "countries" is uncertain, but they are included because at least one of the sources includes them.

What is emerging is that this "List of countries by GDP (nominal)" is mainly a copy of three lists compiled by three separate bodies. What appears on the List is determined by what appears in the original lists. Has anyone checked if there is a copyright violation taking place here? We may be allowed to quote from the lists, but are we allowed to copy them entirely?

If this List includes copies of existing lists, and if Wikipedia is allowed to use them, and if the original lists include the EU, then this List should continue to include the EU. However, there is some dispute if all three lists include the EU, and there is some dispute as to how the original lists present the EU, and there is some dispute as to how this List should present the EU - though overwhelming consensus is that the EU should NOT be ranked, and the general movement is that the EU should be located at the bottom of the List.

There appears to be consensus for a footnote explaining the inclusion of the EU. This would be useful to prevent future disputes.

There has been some discussion, but no consensus on changing the name of the List.

In brief - consensus is that the EU is not a country but should remain in the List as unranked with a footnote; ongoing discussion as to where the EU is placed in the List. Research needed on if and how the EU is presented in the original sources. Research needed on possible copyright violation.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

CIA copyright statement: ''Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the Central Intelligence Agency Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Central Intelligence Agency's permission. We request only that the Central Intelligence Agency be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits or bylines be similarly credited to the photographer or author or Central Intelligence Agency, as appropriate.''

I can't see any declaration of copyright on the CIA or other two sources so it must be assumed that this information is public domain.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Very well put SilkTork, thank you very much. I hope that the agreement is to list the countries and "external bodies" (like the World, the EU and Hong Kong for example) all together ordered in descendant order by GDP.  Those "external bodies" should not be ranked as shown in the sources.  Putting a note on all of them mentioning that they are not a country but they are shown for comparison purpose only sounds good for me. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with your proposition Miguel. Taking the not-countries out is not as easy and clear cut as is insinuated by most here so far. There will always be a dispute about the country-status of some of them. From my short experience on wikipedia country is one of the most disputed words at all. Why shouldn't Greenland be a country? Do you mean to take out everything that is not a sovereign state? What is that than? Kosovo, Taiwan? In my opinion, agreed that it is shaped very much by Jack's plausible argumentation, we should simply rely on the country definitions by our sources, and they are different. BTW, as different as on wikipedia talk pages, when it comes to defining this term. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 08:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tomeasy, I did not mean that we should remove anything, on the contrary we should keep "anything" that the sources are giving us. What I meant is that putting a note for those evident non-countries (like the EU) is OK with me, but it should be put for "anything" that it is obvious that is not a country.  And it is very important, if not mandatory, that the list is ordered by GDP, this simple order is a very valuable piece of information.  I would be a real ignorant if at this point I ask for the non-countries to be removed :) Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. In deed I thought you wanted to take those obvious not-countries out of the GDP-ordered list and list them seperately at the bottom. So, I see that I contested something that has never been requested. My apologies. Putting the note, however, will require to answers the same question and I think there are many cases without obvious answer. However, putting a not or not will by far not be as contentious and I expect this ruling not to cause the trouble that I expected from my earlier misunderstanding. So, I wouldn't make a fuzz about that. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 08:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize; after reading my post it is indeed confusing, I hope it is clear now. After all we are just a bunch of "ignorants" here ;)  Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, but too bad that almost the entire Article needs to be erased and filled in with ACCURATE data, and too bad that no one cares about anything other then sticking their EU where it does not belong.I guess this is the whole purpose of this page.Many people who were in discussion where here much earlier than me, they should have known it. I see it now and I am speechless. Its like the article is perfect and there is only ONE problem, where to place the EU. Most ignorant people I have ever encountered--Geographyfanatic (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, welcome to what you (yourself) called "the most ignorant people I have ever encountered", you can just be another "ignorant" like all of us. Offending will get you nowhere.  You have noticed a very valid problem, and you are very right ... and you are VERY WELCOME to correct the article.  The whole discussion is about a topic that has been discussed so many times in the past, and still "ignorants" like us have to deal with people like you that just want to remove the EU from the list just because of a technicality ("is not a country").  We do not need to discuss about the problem you mentioned, we simply have to fix it ... and you can help to get it fixed; so for once be part of the solution and stop being part of the problem.  If you do not want or do not have time, do not worry, I am sure than another "ignorant" (maybe me) will do it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Miguel, generally your are right. Mistakes need to be corrected and not just decried and related to bad faith as geoFanatic did. Specifically, you should first confirm if the data is in deed as wrong as claimed. This is not the case here. The answer is simply that PPP and nominal exchange rate have een mixed up. So we can all sleep well about this point. The list might want to see an update to the recent statistic published on the CIA website. Currently, we are still reporting last years data. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 08:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Mostly good summary so far. With respect to the copyright, mere data is not covered by copyright. The creative effort for these lists is negligible, and "sweat of the brow" does not create a copyright in most jurisdictions. I would like to point out one more point, namely the comment by TFI currently at the very bottom of this page, namely that for him the problem is indeed only the incongruence between the name ("countries") and the content (some non-countries included), so he seems to be fine with a page renaming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Very true Stephan, and to be completely honest, that may require more discussion and consensus, since I am personally inclined for that approach too (not that I am betraying the fellow "ignorants" that are in favor of keeping the EU on the list). I do not know what the process would be, but if there was a poll to change the name, my vote will go for "Agree". Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Comments: I do not see the general movement to put the EU on the bottom of the list. I do not find this discussion civil enough (also my mistake). However, I hope that your positive remark about the civility will help us improve on this. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 08:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. As I said before, the lists as they look now should stay, with my suggestion that the EU figures from the WB list be omitted as they don't seem to have originated from the source. We shouldn't be adding up the GDP of the 27 EU countries, and there may be technical reasons why that does not give an accurate figure anyway. (Again, if I am reading the source wrong and there is indeed a EU figure, then retain it. I just haven't seen it.)

Instead of a footnote, we should state in the intro that though the sources have "country" lists, they themselves note that these lists contain economic entities (there's gotta be a less goofy way of saying that) which aren't normally considered "countries." And that the WB list (and we should verify this) only contains member states, so it is not exhaustive. Might have a footnote to the various sources' specific statements about "country."

I know several here are pretty passionate about this issue and see it as a way to "sneak in" the EU figures so as to "beat" the United States. Notwithstanding the possible accuracy of that feeling, I think there should be a recognition that in all likelihood these lists were compiled over the course of several decades and there was no perceived need initially to include anything but countries and perhaps some entities like Hong Kong and Macau. But as the nature of the EU changed from being a trade bloc to something quite different, the realization must have arrived at the IMF and the CIA that, in terms of making these lists for comparative purposes, the EU had to be included. So, instead of coming up with cumbersome new title like "GDP of largest economic entities" they stuck with the simple and familiar and made note that the criterion of "country" was not strictly being held to. The EU is sui generis, and to declare that it therefore should be on a list of like bodies makes little practical sense. That list is a list of one.

And I think we should also recognize in a practical matter, no matter what your feeling on this issue, there most certainly would be an interest in seeing these comparative figures, and in a manner so the direct comparison between "economic entities" can easily be made. Which is why I don't think that making a separate list for the world and the EU is a good idea.

And, by sticking to what the sources themselves have decided to list - which is really what we should be doing at wikipedia - we aren't opening a can of worms whereby the need to include other trade blocs is warranted. If the IMF and the CIA in the future decide to include those figures as, presumably, they perceive a demand for such comparative figures, then we should reflect that call on their part. But not before. In a similar fashion, the argument that individual American States be included is negated as these bodies don't choose to note their individual sizes of economies.

The consolation should be for those who feel strongly about narrowly sticking to "countries" is that the actual ranking is of countries, not of "economic entities." This to me is an important thing to stick to. The list says it ranks countries and it in fact does that - but it also includes, for comparison purposes, those other economic entities for which the sources perceive a need to be present. Canada Jack (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jack's idea on how this list should be changed and how the contents on the list need to be clarified and why this is the way to go. Declaring up front that the term country that is in the title of the article is defined differently (extended from the common perception) by the different sources is not only the most credible way of dealing with the fact that the lists have different number of countries. It is also didactically wise. Our readers will get a feeling that the decision on whom to lists is subjective and decided upon differently. This is worthwhile noting, not only in a footnote. I think that the prose part on top of the list has exactly the purpose of clarifying the underlying definitions.  T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 14:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with Jack once again bashing some editors anonymously to "sneak in" the EU figures so as to "beat" the United States. Please people, stop this kind of argumentation style. Those are not arguments and this is not their place. It makes me wonder whom Jack has meant and I do not see anyone here he should have meant. Perhaps, he means me. There are about 3 proponents other than Jack taking the side of leaving the EU in the table. So probably, I feel 33% insulted. But it's wrong! I feel irritated that I have to drop statements here assuring others that I really act in good faith. Why is this accusation always directed to the people who are for the EU listing and not the other way around? Please, everyone focus on the issue and stop thinking and talking about things that are you only imagine, especially when this imagination is negative towards others. Thanks. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 14:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You've misread me. I stated that for some here who don't want the EU listed, they feel that others are only motivated to list the EU to one-up America. That's not an insult or anything, it's a description of how some have expressed themselves, not a comment on that expression. I further said even if that is true (I don't know if it is and there is nothing on this page that makes me think some are in fact motivated to one-up the US) there are good reasons to list the EU motivations notwithstanding. In no way was I accusing people or "bashing" editors. I was simply acknowledging a sentiment expressed by some and that even if this is accurate, it shouldn't matter. Canada Jack (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for the explanation. That is still not how I would understand the first sentence of this paragraph if I read it again for the first time, but that may be due to my non-native English. In any case, you've made clear now what you meant and what not, and that settles the everything. I guess I got a bit too sensitive on this issue after reading this accusation again and again. Cheers! T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Rereading that I can now see that my intent wasn't clear and how you could interpret that the way you did. When I said "some" see it as a way to sneak in, I didn't mean "some are here, intending to sneak in the EU", but "some feel that others are intending to sneak in the EU"... Canada Jack (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

♠ I hope that repeat "Agrees" will not be counted more than once. ;) My initial argument was along the same lines as Geographyfanatic.  I still believe it to be the best and most accurate way.  However, so that the liberal minds here don't say I'm never a team player, I will agree that the "entities" (country-like or whatever) that have been listed so far, be listed in a separate list in the article, and labeled as economic unions, regions or some such similar wording.  I don't want anyone to mistake what is and what is not a country.  Readers that want to compare things, can still do that.  Don't ask me to compromise any further, because the otherside has not changed their opinion at all the way I see it.  The ball is in your court. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am inclined, after a consensus is properly made, to probably change the name of the article to avoid these controversies in the future. Maybe as TFI mentioned, something like "List of world economies by GDP (nominal)" would fit better (we can do a redirect from the current name to the newly proposed name if needed).   However, I am sure than the future discussion will be "is the EU a world economy", but if it is clearly stated that some of these entities (like HK as well for example) are included for comparison only, there should be no reason to remove them again. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the summary. I agree that this has been fairly civil for such a heated debate; I have been involved in several disputes that were much less civil (this one did not even meet Godwin's law ;-). Agree with providing a footnote making clear that the EU is not a country. If I understand Miguel.mateo correctly his suggestion is to make it something like "non ranked entries did not receive a rank number because they are not countries, these entries are merely added for comparison" or something similar (the footnote will requires some collaborative effort to steer between sensitivities). Arnoutf (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion points
Consensus is that the EU should remain in the List unranked. Discussion points are: -


 * How should the EU be presented on the List? (Top, bottom, sortable)
 * Position according to GDP rank (at the moment between World and USA) Arnoutf (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed Canada Jack (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONGLY DISAGREE. It is not a country how can you justify logically that it should be in the list?! It should be mentioned somewhere in a footnote where it belongs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.205 (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Should the EU appear in all three charts? (There seems to be some dispute regarding the EU appearing in all three sources).
 * Preferably yes, for consistency, but we need a GDP estimate for the EU from that source. The latter argument takes precedence, so no estimate, no listing in that specific list Arnoutf (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if there is data in the original source. Amalgamation from individual countries is not acceptable (what's domestic with respect to the EU is not necessarily domestic with respect to a member state). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Appear in all three charts. State a value only if this is done explicitly by the source; Otherwise state N.A. for not available or &mdash;. This should be applied to all other entries as well. This way, the tables will have the same length and perhaps can be put in one table (if that is technically going to work with the sorting algorithm). Explanation in the lead as to why some countries have less than three columns with data. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Appear only if in source. No amalgamation from the 27 member figures. For EU, leave blank, but don't do with rest of "missing" figures as columns don't necessarily match by GDP anyway. Canada Jack (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is that there should be a footnote (and a movement toward a sentence in the lead section in addition to the footnote).


 * What should be the wording of the footnote / opening sentence?
 * "Several non-ranked entities are included in the list for comparison. These are included because they have relevant economic properties. These entries are not ranked because they are no countries." (or something similar) Arnoutf (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Arnoutf's suggestion. The second sentence is a bit awkward, an we might be able to simply strike it (and indeed, the third as well).
 * "Several non-ranked entities are included in the list for comparison. The coverage is the same as in the underlying sources." T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The sources list some economies which are not normally considered to be countries. These economies are not ranked here, but are listed in sequence by GDP." Canada Jack (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is still discussion on renaming the article, though there is no consensus for this.


 * With a re-written lead section that more fully explains the List and the appearance on the charts of various entities that may or may not be countries, would a renaming be necessary?
 * Depends on the new lead section. I would argue against rewriting it too much though. Arnoutf (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary, but not a problem, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Countries is pretty because it's simple. Readers will more easily find the list. "More correct" titles will probably be more complicated and less likely to be typed by our readers. Moreover, the sources call them country lists and, to this end, even extended or clarified the definition. I see rather added value in conveying this message along with the GDP data. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not rename article. Canada Jack (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What would be the implications of renaming this List? (Renaming similar Lists for example).
 * I think that if it is renamed, it can no longer be maintained that non-countries are listed but not ranked. That is in my opinion already an internal issue. For similar lists I think that should be treated case by case as I think there are relatively few (but I may be wrong). Arnoutf (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That depends on how it is renamed. If it is a more general expression to include the HKs and EUs etc, then those might be ranked. However, this will still be problematic because rank numbers are going to shift. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to rename if the intros are clear that non-country entities are in the lists. Canada Jack (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 SilkTork  *YES! 16:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your consensus outcome after a week of discussion is to only add a footnote? I'm thinking about all the time I've wasted. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 17:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a two edged argument. Think of all the time others have wasted to prevent a complete (and in their/my opinion unustified) overhaul of the article. Arnoutf (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, right or wrong, they're getting what they want (i.e., the EU prominently listed as a country). And it goes for every other similar list.  Congratulations to Wikipedia for excellence in scholarship! I'll see if I can find the proper barnstar for the occasion. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems you've not being paying much attention, founders. The EU will not be listed as a country. What was lacking here was clarity. Now there will be clarity, clarity in that the sources' criteria of what gets on their "country" list, will be noted. Clarity in that that will make it clear why some non-countries are on the lists. And further clarity as to why, therefore, we aren't giving an ordinal rank to the EU etc. The reality here is that even the CIA recognizes the interest in measuring the EU as a separate entity and having it listed for the purpose of comparison. And, like it or not, the reality is that despite the EU's non-status as a country, this sort of comparison is increasingly being made. Fifteen years ago, there would have been no issue as few would have bothered to measure the EU or its predecessors, as few would have seen a relevant need to compare the GDP to others. That is no longer the case. But, as I said before, The United States is in no danger of losing the #1 ranking as country. And I will fight any attempt to give the EU that rank. Canada Jack (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to make our investments not a waste, we should now try to pull things together in a consistent way that will be stable in the future. Excluding the EU data where it is not given by the source, displaying an obvious cavity in the table and at the same time stating why that is—namely to follow the sources—will retain many happy-go-lucky people to simply delete the EU, as it has happened in the past, and will also be easy to defend when the issue is brought to the talk page. I have just used one potential outcome (the one I prefer :-) to show how positive it can be, if things are consistent. There may be other options that will maintain stability well or even better in the future. It should be our aim now to create a stable version (consistent and dependable). One more point. I think that our conclusion should also be adopted to the sister articles: List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. Provided we do our work properly, we can achieve that 4 highly disputed articles become assailable. And the our efforts would not been a waste. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 19:02, 20 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.

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)

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)