Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)/Archive 8

why did the world bank understate Canada by so much
Canada nominal gdp is the one with close to the largest percent difference between the three lists. close to 1.6 trillion by the other 2 lists putting it right around eighth place. world bank has it at 1.4 trillion and its data is given precedence by the search engine google. Grmike (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)grmike

Italian Economy did not over take the UK Economy?
From this CIA est, It looks as if the UK will retain its title above Italy as the worlds 6th largest economy. From the IMF est it tells the same story, UK economy has still kept its lead over Italy.

I hope Italians see this, especialy "TheWarrior" from youtube. He thinks the Italian economy over took the UK economy. He thinks in 2009....

Italy $2.7 trillion UK $2.2 trillion

This makes me laugh, becuase Italys economy was $2.3 in 2008, and he thinks in 2009 (after a recession and the Italian economy shrank by 4.8%) the Italian economy grew to $2.7 hahaha!!!! (Thats more growth than china saw in 2009!) Warrior is thick.

Can any one tell me if these figures from the CIA are true? 193.1.57.42 (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * according to List of countries by future GDP (nominal) estimates the UK and Italy are nearly the same. There's more to a country's clout economically speaking than just nominal gdp.  exports, gdp per capita the main indicator of wealth, stock exchange sizes, energy production.  Italy exports more but has more people (lower gdp per capita), London's stock exchange is 4 times larger than Milan's and Great Britain is a larger producer of vehicles.  Don't be too concerned about nominal gdp lists they are the most variable of all the economic indicators due to their sensitivity to so many constantly changing factorsGrmike (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

Well the UK has a larger population (62.5 million). Italy (60 million). In terms of GDP PPP the UK economy is much larger than Italys. (UK $2.2 trillion, and Italy $1.7 trillion). GDP PPP is the best meathod of calculation for a nations wealth, and in terms of GDP PPP Britain is per capita much richer than Italy. Italy exports more, but Britains exports are more tech advanced such as computers and cars or military equiptment, while Italys are more food and clothes.

Yes the UKs economy has retained its title over Italy in GDP Nominal. Rademire (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @Rademire this article is not about PPP but nominal. I guess Italy exports more cars than the UK, but this is irrelevant for our article as the rest of your analysis.
 * @all Relevant would be if someone presented evidence why we should deviate from our sources. I do not see such evidence yet. Tomea s y T C 17:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The CIA WFB provides a rough estimate of 2009 figures so it is probably better to wait for more authoritative and reliable estimates from the IMF (in April) or World Bank (in July) to determine whether Italy or the UK has the larger economy since they are fairly close. The WFB will often revise their figures later to match the IMF figures.
 * A bit off-topic and tangential, but to answer your question, the most commonly cited indicator of economic power is nominal GDP as it reflects the ability of nation to purchase at international prices. PPP or more specifically PPP per capita is more suited to gauging the living standards of the local population than as an indicator of power. This of course is beyond the scope of this article. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Countries -> GDP nominal
 * Cities -> GDP PPP
 * per capita -> GDP PPP Polylepsis (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think, you are all drifting off topic. It might be helpful to look at the header of this talk section. Also, the question whether PPP or nominal are more useful or in which situation is speculative and certainly not subject to this list, where we simply report figures. This interesting, yet never-ending and somewhat pointless debate might be lead under Purchasing Power Parity.

The question here, if I understand it correctly, is whether we should deviate from our sources to avoid that Italy is ranked ahead of the UK. One solution that appears reasonable to me is what Nirvana proposed in his last post. Tomea s y T C 18:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

In any way, I urge the warring editors to stop their skirmishes and get involved into the present discussion here. The simple term China was long-standing before this war started. So, I think it should be the form implemented in the article until we come to a decision. Tomea s y T C 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, i agree.Polylepsis (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which of my statements do you agree with and why? Tomea s y T C 20:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * China is fine. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Which rationale? WP:NCCN?
 * Guys, you should back up your opinions a bit! There are people out there constantly changing to PRC. What do you tell. If we want to fix it once and for all, we need a decision that is on solid ground. Tomea s y T C 21:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

PRC is better per this. Simply calling it China would appear to imply the PRC POV, which we have no business in doing. Pfainuk talk 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which has been a disputed guideline for years and carries no weight. The rest of the world calls the PRC "China" as shorthand, so Wikipedia can too. The only "POV" comes from a minority of people, making it a WP:FRINGE view. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Which dispute are you taking about? I have had a look at this guideline and did not find any discussion about it during the past year. Can you point to the disputes you mean? For me it appears quite stable. Tomea s y T C 06:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Echoing Pfainuk. IMO, we should Change "China" to People's Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan) stay the way it is now, is the best solution. --LLTimes (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Give some arguments please. Tomea s y T C 07:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

International Monetary Fund
OK guys, the IMF's Chapters 3 and 4 World Economic Outlook (WEO) comes out the 14th of April. However Chapters 1 and 2 come out on the 21st of April! Any one know why? IMF.Source. Recon.Army (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

2009 GDP Figures
When are the next GDP figures for 2009 comming out? Rademire2 (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The IMF values are will be release on April 21st, at 9 am EST (i.e. in less than 24 hrs for those want to update the list). World Bank estimates are traditionally updated in July. Hope this helps. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Brazil gonna overtake Italy as the 7th biggest nominal gdp about 2013?
In 2009, Brazil had a GDP of 1,574,039 tri USD. That gdp was exactly R$3,14 tri and Brazil had a convertion of us$ 1,00 = R$ 2,00.

For 2010, the estimative is that Brazil will has a real grow of 5,6% + 4,6% of inflation --> R$3,14 tri + 5,6% + 4,6% = R$ 3,46 tri. In 2010 Brazil is having a medium convertion of 1 usd = R$1,80, then: in 2010 brazil will has a Gdp nominal of: 1,901,000 tri USD.

For 2011, the estimative is that Brazil will has a real grow of 5,3% + 4,5% of inflation --> R$3,46 tri (2010) + 5,3% + 4,5% = R$ 3,80 tri. In 2011 Brazil is having a medium convertion of 1 usd = R$1,85, then: in 2011 brazil will has a Gdp nominal of: 2,054,000 tri USD.

For 2012, the estimative is that Brazil will has a real grow of 5,3% + 4,5% of inflation --> R$3,80 tri (2011) + 5,3% + 4,5% = R$ 4,172 tri. In 2012 Brazil is having a medium convertion of 1 usd = R$1,90, then: in 2012 brazil will has a Gdp nominal of: 2,195,000 tri USD.

For 2013, the estimative is that Brazil will has a real grow of 5,3% + 4,5% of inflation --> R$4,172 tri (2012) + 5,3% + 4,5% = R$ 4,580 tri. In 2013 Brazil is having a medium convertion of 1 usd = R$1,95, then: in 2013 brazil will has a Gdp nominal of: 2,350,000 tri USD.

PS: Actually, Italy has a GDP of 2,118 TRI USD. It must grow 1% each year.

So, Brazil must be the 7th economy already in 2013. Maybe the 5th economy in 2016. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.81.7 (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt it. The IMF allways gets its forecats wrong. IMF said India would be the 5th largest economy in the world by the year 2000 and that Japan would be the worlds 1st largest. You cant ever listen to forecasts Recon.Army (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When did the IMF say that Japan would be the world's largest economy? For that I would love to see a reference. Tomea s y T C 19:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Were you around in the mid 1980s? If you were and followed any sort of economics you would of no doubt of come across top economic forecasts that Japans economy was to over take the US economy by the year 2000. In fact by 2010/2020 the US economy was to be placed 3rd place behind Japan, China and India. Every one thought Japans economy was unstoppable with 8+% growth per anum. Then the 90s hit in and Japans economic growth slumped. Japan was an emerging economy, much like China, but 8+% economic growth never lasts. You ever hear of Juggernaut Japan?
 * Its hard to find any info from the mid 1990s let alone the mid 1980s, and i doubt one can find this on the Internet easily. Point is all forecasts are rubbish. They rarely come true. Just 4 years ago the IMF expected the UK economy to be some 3.2 trillion in 2010 larger than France and right up Germany's ass. Fact is no one saw this recession coming. Forecasts are fairy tales. 2007 UK economy was 2.8 trillion. France was 2.6 trillion. Now in 2009, UK is 2.1 trillion and France 2.6 trillion. IMF never forecast this. Recon.Army (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, even though I would appreciate a more appropriate tone. Indeed it sounds reasonable that such predictions (i.e., Japan to overtake the US) were made by some people in the 80's. I also acknowledge that you are in trouble with my request to show a reference, since these claims are about a time before the internet. Therefore, please acknowledge that I had no idea you were talking about this period of time. The remainder of this talk page section deals with current issues and you did not show at all you are talking about a time 25 years back.
 * Nevertheless, I doubt that it was the IMF who officially forecast Japan would overtake the US, yet some people may have said so. It is indeed comparable to the situation with China today achieving tremendous growth rates, and people suggesting they would overtake the US in this or that year, by simply extrapolating their growth. Here, we agree, I would not give too much credit to such crystal balling. However, I would be surprised seeing the IMF officially predicting such a development. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y T C 12:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "the US economy was to be placed 3rd place behind Japan, China and India"
 * I guess you meant 4th place, or perhaps you want to remove one of the countries from the list. Since you are quoting the opinion of the IMF with this statement, the answer should be in the document you refer to. Can you cite it? As I understand, this time you are talking about a recent prediction by the IMF. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y T C 12:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know that 1,574,039 tri USD is about 1.57*10^15 USD? Is that what you mean? T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y T C 19:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Recon.Army who said "In fact by 2010/2020 the US economy was to be placed 3rd place behind Japan, China and India."
 * Can you cite any IMF references to this claim or is once again more a hear and say of some? T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y T C 10:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan ranking
It appears that many politically disputed territories receive a dash instead of a rank. Similar to these territories, Republic of China (Taiwan) also lacks the membership to numerous international organizations. Should there be a reason for 2 China's to appear on one list? Should Republic of China (Taiwan) retain its name but a dashed rank? What is your opinion?Ao333 (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Separate GDPs = separate listings. No rank, because they're not members (of whatever organisation, or of the UN). Night w (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

TAGS
Yesterday evening 2 tags were added to the article.

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

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

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

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

UE is not a country. Should be removed from the list of countries. Or, instead, include in the list other inter-national agreements like NAFTA and MERCOSUR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.33.1 (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed ad nauseam. We follow the practice of the sources and this is clearly stated in the article: Several economies which are not considered to be countries (world, the EU, Eurozone, and some dependent territories) are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed. --Boson (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is Nafta
Saying that the european union is listed shouldn't NAFTA be noted as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.19.121 (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Read note in intro and see previous discussions. --Boson (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove European union please
Europe is not a country, nor does it deserve any kind of attention, it is somewhat of a political joke.

If it must stay in the list then we should also include the African Union, Asian Corporation Dialogue, European Union, signed members of the Union of South American Nations, and signers of the North American Free Trade Agreement. All of which are political jokes and represent no real unity.120.20.141.99 (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been gone over many times and i can not see the outcome being any different this time. The fact is he CIA world Factbook (the source for one of the tables), has the european union in it, yet it does not have the African Union or NAFTA. As long as the organisations in question provide a clear reference to the EU or Eurozones total, rather than someone adding up all of the different countries figures, i dont have a problem with it remaining.  BritishWatcher (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The introduction clearly states:


 * Several economies which are not considered to be countries (world, the EU, Eurozone, and somedependent territories) are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed.


 * As long as the intro clearly informs people of that and it does not get ranked, there is no harm done by providing the reader with the extra information the sources themselves provide. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion and the above responses the following arguments are made for EU inclusion:


 * EU appears in the source.
 * EU is the worlds biggest economic block.
 * The EU should be regarded as a single country.
 * It provides context to interpret the size of the countries.
 * The EU and the World do not have a rank. They are simply there for comparison.

The fact that the EU appears in the source does not change the fact that it is not a country, nor does it function, or is received as though it were one. In addition the argument that adding together numbers constitutes original research is irrelevant by the fact that WP:OR permits routine calculations.

The EU is not the worlds biggest economic block, it is most likely The World (UN), or NAFTA. No I do not want EU removed just to see USA on top (I am Australian). EU is not a country, if it is regarded as one then its constitute states should be removed from the list and moved to a separate page.

Yes it does provide some context to interpret the size of the countries however so would any other economic block, the most useful context is the other countries themselves.

Following this, I suggest we remove The World, EU, and any other listed entity not considered a Country (Apparently the UK), put these in a separate list above or below along with the GDP of the 5 continents. 120.20.141.99 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose a change on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On what basis? 120.20.141.99 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also oppose a change, on the basis of several thousands of lines of previous debates in the archives of this page. Arnoutf (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can hardly substantiate an opposition as "it has been discussed already". This is how reform works. 120.20.141.99 (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reform works if you convince a majority here to support its removal but as of yet there is no reason to. People just have to accept there is a big difference between the EU and other international groupings, that is why the sources this site uses include it and that is why it is allowed in the list. Take a look at the G8/G20 meeting taking place over this weekend, the EU is represented there by the EU council president and the EU commission president. You can not say the same thing for something like the African Union. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the IP. This has been discussed endlessly in the past and none of the IPs arguments is new. Rather I see the same inconsistent line of argumentation, e.g., NAFTA and others should be included as well. They are not included by our sources. The alternative proposal made by the IP was to eliminate the EU along with other "non-countries" like the UK (!). This proposal already displays its problems as it is stated. Who would ever want to exclude the UK from this list except for the IP. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y T C 21:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your counter arguments are irrelevant and/or display an ignorance of the argument. As shown by the IP, arguments of substantial previous discussion are unsubstantiated by that claim alone. In the conclusion, he states the cumulative GDP of the 5 (6?) continents should be listed separately, and to have all entities currently listed but are not countries moved there, saying that some are claiming that the UK is not a country, so should be in that alternative list. He did NOT suggest that it should be removed. As IP shows, "they are not included by our sources" is invalid since any given source could reference irrelevant information however we should not simply include that information and that Wikipedia permits routine calculations, meaning that if Europe can be included, then other continents can equally qualify regardless of whether the numbers have been added by the source or not. 120.16.184.179 (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The European Union is not a continent—it only covers 27 out of 50 European countries. This list is about economics, not about "what is a country" (are you looking for List of countries, perhaps?), and its representatives are currently sitting at the G-20 summit in Toronto, alongside the other 19 of the world's largest economies. Why? The EU represents a common currency and a common citizenship (you can't be a citizen of NAFTA or CARICOM). It's a one-of-a-kind supranational body. Also, as agreed in this discussion, where a list of countries is based on a single source, we use the states listed in that source. If you have a problem with the guideline we follow, IP, then you'd best address your issues with that before trying to deviate from it here. Night w (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to add to the discussion, it is interesting to note that in many multilateral economic fora, it is the EU - and not its individual states - that is the principle actor. Basically, for better or worse, economically the EU is considered as a block, as opposed to a collection of individual actor. For example, within the WTO, it is the EU and not member states which files complaints to the DSB (there are exceptions). And the trend is accelerating, as can be seen from discussions to merge all of the EU states' IMF voting rights (or maybe just euro-states). This is not the case with NAFTA, the African Union or other multilateral trade blocks. And since wikipedia should aim to educate and facilitate the access to relevant information, I believe this fact justifies including the EU in the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.111.59 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The EU was formed to act as an Economic and political union between the nations of Europe, it is vastly different from the UN and it is strange people would argue this when wanting the EU removed from the list. Just accept the EU is the worlds largest free trade market that every non-EU nation wants a slice of. I suggest some of you people actualy educate your self on the whole structure of the EU. Recon.Army (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Large numbers
This hilarious edit made me wonder, how can we illustrate in a rather obvious way that the units used are correct and not wrong by a factor of thousand. I have to admit that this is a confusing point, while I am still laughing about the two edits of the IP. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y T C 09:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird figures
Japans economy shrank by 5+% in 2009, yet its GDP is actualy far larger than it was in 2008? this dosent make sense! Also the Italian economy in 2008 was just around 2.3 trillion but shrank by around 5% in 2009 and its gdp is now 2.1 trillion. However. The UK economy was 2.6 trillion in 2008 and also shrank by around 5% but still not as bad as Italy, and yet the UK economy is now just inder 2.2 trillion!!!!! things dont add up!! To sum it up, Japans economy shrank far worse than either the UK or italy, yet its actual GDP is far higher than it was in 2008. Yet the UK, whos economy shrank less than either Italy and Japans, lost 400 billion. I dont understand how Japans economy shrinks worse than the UK yet the Japanese GDP is higher than it was last year, and the UK who shrankat a lower rate looses a massive chunk out of its economy!

Is it something to do with x change rates? Recon.Army (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, do not forget the currency exchange rate and inflation. // Rédacteur Tibet2 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There we have the fatal flaw of this table and the related data. The Japanese economy didn't grow or shrink based on the fact that the chosen unit of measure of GDP (the USD) has been widely fluctuating since 2008.  If the U.S. enters a period of deflation, does that mean the GDP of the rest of the world just went up?  The "science" of Economics has some gaping holes69.37.3.221 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

New World Bank Figures
I see the update tag has been added because new figures from the world bank have been published. I do not mind updating those figures if no one else has started / intends to but there is one thing i need to check. Hong Kong in the new list is ranked like all other countries, Hong Kong is currently not ranked in any of the 3 tables, i cant see the old World Bank source so i am not sure what it did last time.

Should hong kong be ranked like the source, or should all the numbers be different to avoid counting hong kong. I dont want to do it a certain way then all the numbers need changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was going to make the changes but i will not have the time in the next few weeks, gonna be too busy. If no one else has updated it after that i will do it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If the sources list Hong Kong as equal among all other countries, so should we. This applies to each table individually. Note that the CIA table is much longer for instance. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y T C 18:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

china japan
so did china actually overtake japan or not? wikipedia is great on outdated info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAF987FSA9D87 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts in future (See:Signatures). It is highly likely Japan has been over taken by china, this will be reflected in the 2010 updates. All the tables on the article at present are for 2009. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-16/china-economy-passes-japan-s-in-second-quarter-capping-three-decade-rise.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.49.36 (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the use of this link? Nobody, contests that China overtakes Japan. What we are presenting here are the tables of Worldbank, IMF, and CIA for all countries of the world. Can you provide a link to those sources showing new tables with China on position number two? Once this is possible, we will update. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y T C 18:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by Real GDP?
Is there a list of countries by real GDP? I think we should take inflation and deflation into account. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as real GDP as that would require all currency being pegged to all others, and would require equal labour cost across the world. To deal with the non-existence of real GDP we use different operationalisations like nominal, purchasing parity etc. Arnoutf (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean?


 * IMF has a list of countries by real gross domestic product (GDP at constant prices). --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=51&pr.y=18&sy=2008&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512,941,914,446,612,666,614,668,311,672,213,946,911,137,193,962,122,674,912,676,313,548,419,556,513,678,316,181,913,682,124,684,339,273,638,921,514,948,218,943,963,686,616,688,223,518,516,728,918,558,748,138,618,196,522,278,622,692,156,694,624,142,626,449,628,564,228,283,924,853,233,288,632,293,636,566,634,964,238,182,662,453,960,968,423,922,935,714,128,862,611,716,321,456,243,722,248,942,469,718,253,724,642,576,643,936,939,961,644,813,819,199,172,184,132,524,646,361,648,362,915,364,134,732,652,366,174,734,328,144,258,146,656,463,654,528,336,923,263,738,268,578,532,537,944,742,176,866,534,369,536,744,429,186,433,925,178,746,436,926,136,466,343,112,158,111,439,298,916,927,664,846,826,299,542,582,967,474,443,754,917,698,544&s=NGDP_R&grp=0&a=


 * The problem is that the GDP at constant prices is expressed in national currency, which means that countries cannot be compared, which means that the list cannot be sorted by value. --Boson (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See Lists of countries by GDP for various possibilities. --Boson (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

IMF Table Glitch
If you sort the IMF table by the GDP column, the data are sorte lexicographically instead of numerically (i.e. "12,345 comes before "2,345", instead of the other way around). This is probably because the data are being sorted as if they were character strings instead of numbers, but I have little knowledge about how to fix this.  The tables summarizing World Bank and CIA data are correctly sorted. 204.111.220.23 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Outdated GDP
Yes GDP is outdated. China has double of Japan's GDP now here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html?countryName=China&countryCode=ch&regionCode=eas&rank=3#ch

Dated 21/10/2010 3:53PM (+10 GMT) jhgenius01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhgenius01 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

–That list is purchasing power parity and basicly it's what it's telling you is not that China's economy is twice as large as Japan's but that stuff is a lot cheaper in China. 72.177.141.242 (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WE NEED AVERAGES!!
Somebody please make another table with the average GDP from the 3 existing tables. Its more stable and predictable that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.68.191 (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be original research, unfortunately. -- 92.225.150.133 (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Diagram problem
The diagram skips India and Spain and lists Russia as #10. Someone fix it, please? -- 92.225.150.133 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * India and Spain are 11 and 12. the graph is for 2010 not 2009.

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


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

Im afraid that all the nonsense below on whether the EU is a country or not merely shows the ignorance of the writers The EU is unusual because although it does NOT act as a singe country in SOME areas-like healthcare taxation or military activities etc,it DOES act as a single united country in OTHER areas like economic policy and international trade etc. The EU has a special minister for these matters who represents the EU in trade discussions etc and who,because the EU is the worlds biggest economic block ,has considerable power. It is because of this power that the world is at present concerned at the mismanagement of the economies of some EU states ,with results that may effect the economies around the world from China to the US The EU should therefore because of its power and importance ,always be regarded as a single country where economic matters are concerned80.99.111.125 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The EU is not a country. If you want it to be one, remove all of its constituent members. Otherwise all the Federations/federal republics get to be listed.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been talked over numerous times. Please read the lead paragraph, read the talk archives, and then if you still disagree, start a discussion thread. The sources include certain polities that are not sovereign states. This list is simply a reprint of the information in the sources. There are other territories on this list that are not states besides the EU. Is there a specific reason you applied your logic to that entry and not the others?  Night  w   14:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The EU meets none of the criteria for natinhood, yet we constatly see it posted on everything. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it's a single market, so from an economic perspective, it acts very similar to a country. See also this. -- 92.225.150.133 (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've noticed this as well. Many people push for further integration of Europe (within Europe and elsewhere), and regarding the EU as a country is certainly a step in this direction. This may partially explain why organizations like the CIA choose to include the EU in lists like these. While I share this sentiment personally, it's certainly not a valid reason for regarding the EU as a single nation in an encyclopedic context. However, the EU is already heavily integrated and has many (if not most) features of a federation, and thus I find it relevant and interesting that it is listed, as long as it is made clear that it is not a country. 129.241.124.73 (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The EU isn't regarded as a country by any of the sources. However, the CIA lists the EU in its factbook, and its rationales for including it are reproduced in the CIA section below. Canada Jack (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

CIA Data
Sorry but CIA data is so wrong and so corrupted by lack of knowledge it makes no sense to post CIA data as relevant, I have more trust in FCO data than anything CIA could come up with. If data published by CIA was indicator of CIA's data gathering (spying) abilities, one can only wonder the level of incompetence at CIA's office in Langley. CIA data is at best laughable, at worse designed to confuse, undermine real data and mislead researchers.


 * Since the CIA data is in line with data from other sources, it would seem your complaints here are misdirected. Canada Jack (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

2010 IMF projections
It is important to note that 2010 estimates from the IMF will only be released around April 2011. An editor has replaced the 2009 estimates with 2010 projections. My preference would be that the 2009 estimates not be changed until April. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I gotta agree with this, surely the 2010 projections fit in better in future GDP page and estimates here.94.193.61.168 (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

World Bank
The WB list should either be updated to the 2010 figures or removed altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.119.68 (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Brazil's GDP for 2010
The official gdp of brazil for the year of 2010 is: R$3,675 tri or USD2,088 tri (1usd = R$1,76 in 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.98.253 (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a mistake
I am not sure but i think numbers are in billions, not trillions and also for example (World) not 61,963,429 billions but 61.963 billions. About 62 trillions...I hope u understand what i mean. Also sorry if i am mistaken. I am not sure... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.42.246 (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It actually says "in millions," so it is correct. 61,963,429 millions is 61,963.429 billions, or 61.963429 trillions, i.e., about 62 trillions :)--AndresTM (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The United States is in DEBT
Have you heard the news lately? Trillions of dollars in debt to China. Why does Wikipedia insist on perpetuating the belief that America is the richest country in the world? This severely compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. America's net worth is far in the negatives and you all know it. That would make them one of the poorest countries on earth. Americans just want to masturbate to false statistics so they feel better about themselves.
 * This page and sister pages reflect measures of the size of national economies, not levels of debt or spending. The measurements are related, but distinct. Numerous pages are on wikipedia measuring debt and deficits. Canada Jack (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the country's net income, which we all know is heavily negative. This article suggests they are the most profitable nation. If you met a person on the street who is $10,000 in debt, would you consider that person "rich"? No, so why do you still consider the United States rich?
 * Canada Jack clearly said this isn't a list describing the relative wealth, prosperity, or profitability of nations. GDP is not a measure of net income.  This article does not suggest any nation is wealthier than any other, only the relative GDPs of the listed nations.  Don't be thick.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.104.199 (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't know anything about economics, don't pretend to. GDP and external debt are two completely unrelated things, and no, GDP does not measure net income. Plus, the US is not the only indebted country in the world. On the contrary, other rich nations are as indebted or more deeply so. And the country's wealth is not in the negatives. You do not subtract debt from GDP to find net wealth. The country's net wealth is far above any GDP numbers, even accounting for debt. In a nutshell: take a couple of macroeco classes before coming back here making demands about something you don't even come close to understanding. And next time around, don't accuse anyone of masturbating to numbers. Wikipedia does not need resentful, immature teenagers for editors.--AndresTM (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are misinformed on the issue of US external debt. Currently the US owes "China" (Chinese based banking companies, not the country or government itself) stands at just under one trillion USD, which is not "Trillions (plural). Additionaly, as stated before the GDP and external debt are two completely different things. What you are referring are liquid assents and not hard assets, where the US stands at just under 300 trillion dollars gross and 72 trillion dollars net in value.

76.181.114.227 (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Jade Rat

CIA World Factbook statement on European Union
Since there is a perennial debate on whether the European Union, which is not a country, deserves to exist on a list of countries, what the latest CIA World Factbook says on its page for the EU - the only page for a non country/possession - is of interest.:

''The evolution of the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's supranational organization of 27 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history. Dynastic unions for territorial consolidation were long the norm in Europe. On a few occasions even country-level unions were arranged - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were examples - but for such a large number of nation-states to cede some of their sovereignty to an overarching entity is truly unique.''

Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations.

''In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded. Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook. However, because of the EU's special status, this description is placed after the regular country entries.''

Besides the basic tenet that at wikipedia we should tend towards accepting what our sources' rationale for listing or not listing various entities (like Hong Kong), the statement above mirrors many of the arguments for inclusion which exist already on this page. There is no entity like it, it exists in a gray area being an elaborate federation (though completely unique one) and a country (not one, but with a currency, flag, anthem, common incipient political and economic character). Clearly, the CIA has been receiving complaints from those who object to the EU's listing in a listing of countries. The CIA it would seem has realized that for the Factbook to remain relevant, the EU must be listed. Canada Jack (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is "List of countries by GDP". Since the EU is not a country it needs to be removed regardless of whether the CIA fact book includes it or not. The EU may be "nation-like" but it is not a nation and thus irrelevant to an article on "countries" GDP's. Maybe an article on regions GDP, or Union GDP's would alleviate this problem, but until then it must be removed from this specific article. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Childish arguments like that don't really count after all the world is not a country either, nor can you cherry pick what to include and what to drop from a source only to boost your national pride.--Avidius (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Childish comments ? Sounds like someone from a nobody of a borderline third world country like Bulgaria has a little bit of G8 envy and wants to twist stats to be included with big boys. Pretty sad . The EU is not a country. This specific article is about countries. If you want to include regions so that your dirt pile of a country is included please start a separate article. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good I am happy you admit I am correct. Your arguments are worthless. Besides for now we have two people who approve the inclusion of the EU against one that doesn't so I expect you to discontinue your disruptive behavior.--Avidius (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually you are incorrect and I am seeking dispute resolution help as your arguments are worthless, biased, and baseless. You have a long history of edit warring and POV edits. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

...it is not a nation and thus irrelevant to an article on "countries" GDP's. It most certainly not "irrelevant" to an article on "country" GDP, which is precisely why the CIA wrote the section. When I read a story yesterday about Google's antitrust disputes, I read about how it was dealing with the American body which deal with this, and the European Union body which deals with this, not German, French or British regulators. That antitrust ruling by the EU will have enormous influence on how Google conducts its business, possibly more influence than what American regulators decide. And that is only a recent example of how the EU is throwing its economic heft around. So, while politically it lacks cohesion, economically, the EU has enormous clout and equals or surpasses American trade bodies in its influence on economic regulation internationally. GDP is the rawest measure of that economic clout, and this is one reason why the CIA includes the figures and why we should reproduce such figures.

Since we rarely if ever hear similar complaints about the presence of Hong Kong on these lists (which doesn't even come close to aping any of the "country" attributes which the EU has), I must conclude that most who object to the presence of the EU do so in large part because they see the EU ranking above their favoured country. Canada Jack (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Urban Nerd - before you waste everyone's time here, please read the archives where this issue has already been exhaustively discussed. The consensus was to a) list the countries/entities as the sources chose to define them, b) not rank entities which are not countries, c) mention this rationale in the lede.


 * The basic underlying premise here was, since there is an argument both pro and con for including non-countries, and the sources were not consistent in sticking to any clear definition of "country" (as they included the EU, eurozone, Hong Kong, dependencies on "country" lists), it was OR to apply a particular criteria in defining "country" when the sources themselves supplied differing rationales to an issue which is not clear-cut. One good example of how this is not as easy to define as one might assume is the case of (as it is formally known) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Though the UK is a state, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are considered "countries" in and of themselves. Using your argument, the UK, despite appearing on the source lists, should be excised as the UK is most commonly seen as a "state" while England etc is most commonly seen as a "country." Canada Jack (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear,!Iwas wondering when the business of the UK was going to come up!What problems that country produces for poor Wiki!---those endless arguments about whether Olivier Newton John is Australian for example!--and Cary Grant an AMERICAN actor etc...dear me how the British are hated ..or rather how big is the inferiority complex of the world towards them...The problem comes from no one wanting to use the word BRITISH (partly because it now includes many Asians etc)partly because it reminds people how most of the world has been constructed by the British in social cultural historical terms during the three hundred years of British influence etc Anyway ..about the UNITED Kingdom..The writer above says..^.England Scotland Wales N Ireland etc are considered countries in and of themselves^...Sorry but what people in or around the world think is irrelevant. Those places are not countries,they have no diplomatic recognition or representation anywhere in the world. THEY DO NOT EXIST!.Only the UNITED KINGDOM exists .It does not matter what nationalists at home or abroad scream,that is the situation until there are referendums etc and it changes-though I dont think there will be any changes.It is true that many foreign people talk of the UK as England but that is not really correct and is only because of the dominance of that part of the UK in cultural historical and economic terms....and of course because when people speak or hear English they think of England...


 * Well, sure, I agree with most of what you say, but the problem is "country" and "nation" and "state" aren't universally defined terms, like it or not. So, if one wants to make a semantic argument that only "countries" are to be included here, then it surely is relevant to point out that that term is not as defined as some think. "Sorry but what people in or around the world think is irrelevant." But the sources here are all non-British sources. So it is highly relevant. Canada Jack (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * CanadaJack I don't know how you think consensus was gained by you arguing with a bunch of IP's that mostly opposed it. Before you go wasting everyones time with your CIA fact book regurgitation's I am going to be seeking conflict dispute from qualified admins. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You are a fun guy, Urban Nerd. You do what you feel you have to. But answer me this - are we now going to remove the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, because they are not countries? Canada Jack (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

IMF 2011 GDP Data WAY premature
Some overly enthusiastic editor has 2011 IMF GDP data not realizing that this is at best a projection, not even an advance estimate. I strongly suggest this be reverted to the 2010 data or even 2009 to be conservative. Commutator (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct. Even the 2010 IMF data is premature. The definite estimate for IMF GDP figures will be published in April 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.68.196 (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The CIA data are estimates as well. There's nothing wrong with using projections, otherwise you would be stuck with data that is at least 3-4 years old if you wanted to include mostly all nations. --—  r obbiemuffin  <font color="#22aaff">page <font color="#ffaa22">talk 15:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

India/Canada and South Korea/Australia why does the IMF and World Bank have them in a different order?
a lot of the time their numbers differ but rarely do their rankings especially for major economies. Is either list more reputable? When discussing the economies of those four countries in wikipedia articles what ranking should be used?Grmike (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)grmike

It seems odd that the World Bank data differs so much compared to both the IMF and CIA World Factbook. It's only India and Australia that stand out as the most different.

Problems with the Map
It seems to me that the map in this article does not match the corresponding legend? The legend contains only four shades of blue while the map itself has at least five different blue variations. This makes it difficult to estimate how big the different economies are on the map as the categories seem different. -- Darthdyas (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

EU Stats
I think we should have EU stats here as their data is most relevant data for the EU and Industrialized economies, it is most comprehensive data out there, based on series of factors and indicators, including member states central bank reports and statistics as well as national statistics.


 * I don't see why the EU is listed, really. This is "List of countries by GDP" and EU is not a "country".  If we're listing the EU, we might as well list "NATO" or "South America" or other arbitrary groupings.  It's not like the EU pools their money together into a single budget the way China or the US does. 24.126.30.61 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Listing "EU" as an entity is stupid and irrelevant and seems to me to be more driven by personal or political agendas rather than economic ones.  EU is neither a single country nor does it share a common currency.  Using "Eurozone" is much more appropriate, as is done in the World Bank listing.  Also, I have no idea what the OP is trying to say.  "Comprehensive" has nothing to do with "relevance".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.82.11 (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 188.109.110.57, 5 June 2011
GDP of Uzbekistan is not correct. It must be 38,987 in 2011. (Update in April 2011)

188.109.110.57 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Next time, please mention the column where the error shall be fixed. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y T C 20:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The world map on the top right shows wrong color (10-199) for Indonesia. It should be the color for 200-999 range.


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Unprotected Topher385 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

New IMF data of 2010 (updated in September 2011) are on the air !!!!
here HOOTmag (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, I think, though it might need checking.  Night  w   06:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done? when? Data for 24 countries only, have been updated in the article, so far (06:49).
 * HOOTmag (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Didn't look at the whole edit. Scratch that.  Night  w   07:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

GDP date in WB and CIA lists and other general details
There is a diference between the IMF list and the other two. When the IMF staff run into some lack of official or solid data they "take responsability" (and the risks involved) and make their own estimation for the GDP for that coutry/economy for that specific year of reference. Clarifying, if the IMF don't have official data to estimate Australia's GDP for 2010, they make their own estimation, based in the data they have (and also probably based in their previews forcasts and projections). They do so to preserve the comparability of the economies, since GDP data for distinct years are not exactly comparable (growth, inflation, exchange rates variations, etcetera).

The WB and CIA lists are not made that way. They include GDP data of previews years when there is no official GDP data for the last year (in this case, 2010). I think it's important this information to be shown in the article. It's shown (even though in a stealthy way, =P) in the WB pdf file referenced in the article. There is a note there stating that "Figures in italics are for 2009 or 2008." and in the case of Australia, for example, the data is for 2009. I see two possible solutions. Including one additional column in WB and CIA lists showing the years of the data. Including notes for each year (2009, 2008, 2007, etcetera) for the data that is not for 2010. The first solution generates more "visual pollution" and spatial issues (a more frequent appearence of horizontal scroll bars in lower resolutions), but make things clearer. The second one is simpler to implement and visually cleaner.

There is a third option that I don't like at all. Showing only the economies for witch trere is 2010 data. I don't like this solution because it casts out many economies and usefull information. Even though data for different years are not exactly comparable, they at least give us some idea. I think that is why WB included data for 2009 and 2008 in their list. I also think they didn't included older data because the greater the gap in years, the more distorted the comparation become.

Something I noted before is that CIA uses IMF rounded values for every single country in the IMF list. To be more precise, a four significant digits rounding. With this fresh new release of IMF, the CIA values are now different, but compare the IMF April database and the CIA database:

IMF April, 2011

CIA

It's a perfect four signifiacnt digits rounding. But CIA includes previews years data for other countries/dependencies not included in IMF list, being a more complete list. But, as I said before, I think that the year of the data must be shown as it is in the CIA webpage.--201.82.134.33 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Another thing I find important is changing the reference for WB data. The current reference is a pdf file ranking the economies. Although it's very convenient for already showing the GDP data ranked, this file data is updated once a year. There are data already updated by the WB staff, like 2010 GDP for Saudi Arabia (in the pdf is shown 2009 GDP), 2009 GDP for Kuwait (in the pdf is shown 2008 GDP), Tuvalu 2010 GDP (no data in the pdf) and more updates. I think this link is a better reference since the data is retrieved directly from WB database. As soon the database is updated, the updated data will be shown in that link. Or even the WB interface to acsees data here where people can make customized reports includind complete updated WB data. I didn't updated the WB list with this new data because the current figures in the article are in accordance with the given reference (the pdf file). The edits I did up until now didn't change the article at all, but just corrected errors (mostly typos). Changing the reference for WB data, and thus updating some data on that list, would be a true change, so I prefer to see the opinions of editors and wikipedia users first on the issue.

Still about WB list, there are still wrong data for Venezuela and Colombia. I'm going to correct that as soon as I finish this discussion message. About that, maybe it can appear striking the great difference in WB data and the other two (actualy just IMF, since CIA took Venezuela 2010 data from IMF April data) lists, but that is due to problems that can happen with exchange rates as said in the introduction of the article. Up to 8 January 2010 the venezuelan currency, the bolivar or bolivar fuerte (witch is basicaly a bolivar three digits cut or divided by 1,000), that is pegged to the U.S. dollar, had a fixed exchange rate of 2.15 bolivares per dollar. In 8 January 2010 the government devaluated the bolivar into two different and simultaneous exchange rates. 2.60 bolivares per dolar for priority sectors (food, medicines and public sector) and 4.30 bolivares per dolar for the other sectors (cars, eletronics, etcetera). That made quite hard reaching a sole "official" exchange rate. Both, WB and IMF, didn't waste time in the matter and took simple ways. WB just took the mean of the 2.15 exchange rate for the inicial days of January and the 2.60 exchange rate for rest of the year (they basicaly ignored the 4.30 exchange rate, obtaining a exchange rate clse to 2.59). IMF made a simple arithmetic mean between the two exchenge rates (they added then and divided by 2, quite simple, obtaining the "mean" exchange rate of 3.45). That is the origin of the great difference since the data for the Venezuela 2010 GDP in local currency is quite close. 1,012 billion for the IMF and 1,003 billion for the WB. The PPP GDP data, that is supposed to bypass that sort of problem in exchange rate and nominal GDP, is also close. 351,609 million for the IMF and 344,753 million for the WB. The fact is, in face of the "solution" they came up with, none of then, the IMF and the WB, was bothered about that issue. Since 1 January 2011 a sole exchange rate was reestablished at the fixed exchange rate of 4.30. The Venezuela nominal GDP for 2011 is expected to be close to US$ 300 billions (closer to the IMF "last minute solution" than to the WB's).

References:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8449721.stm

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=34&pr.y=11&sy=2010&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=299&s=NGDP%2CNGDPD%2CPPPGDP&grp=0&a=

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CN

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD

--201.82.134.33 (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

GDP in thousands or millions USD?
Should the millions USD read THOUSANDS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.141.85 (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is "Millions". Abaca 15:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABACA (talk • contribs)

Trinidad and Tobago
The values for Trinidad and Tobago and missing from the IMF 2010 list. This places Trinidad and Tobago as the 15th largest economy. Which perhaps isn't true? Can somebody fix it?--Frozenport (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is an integral economy, unique in the financial world, due to it's exceptional status and nature i'd say a listing is deserved, and very convenient at the same time as well. The sum of the Eurozone/EU economy figures are certainly as important and much used as those of it's seperate States. Having said that, i noted that it has now been scratched from the list. I would like to know why? I thought it came in very handy for the general perspective of the world economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.192.78 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
I think it would be interesting to put the Nordic countries in the table for the same reason the EU is ranked. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The EU is ranked because it appears in the sources the list is based on. The Nordic region is not.  Night  w   02:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Misleading figures and missing decimal point
Something seems very wrong with the column headings. If all the figures represent "millions of U.S. dollars" - which means you have to add 6 zeroes to each figure, right? - then the top countries on the list, for example, all have GDP's in the quadrillions of dollars: obviously wrong, but that's what the heading says. I believe a decimal point is needed before the last three figures in each row.

And yes, I realize there's a difference between American and European use of decimal point/comma - but if you're going to use American dollars as the basis, it only seems fitting to use an American decimal point. Otherwise, this article is putting bad, misleading info out there.

It's not my area of expertise, so I'm going to leave it to someone else to double-check and correct these long lists. But I hope someone does it soon. Textorus (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I think I got the zeroes mixed up my head. I guess it's all right as written.  Textorus (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

its 2011 plz refresh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_future_GDP_(nominal) at least the top 15--Kloos952 (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 update
Come on... update 2011 data with a report made in sept. 2011? Please, wait until the April report where we will have some real data, not only estivatives. Giro720 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

CIA list must be cancelled
Cia list must be cancelled.It's a partial source of a common nation. Nobody knows it or there are too many Us people in Wikipedia? 151.41.66.49 (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but what would you suggest as an alternative source? Having just two sources is also an option, but I'd like to see some ideas about a possible replacement.  Night  w   00:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need for three, if two professional organizations, like the IMF and World bank is providing valid data. We can avoid spy agency lists. Edbull (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing,IMF and WB are sufficient.It must be immediately cancelled as in many other articles of Wikipedia.It's seems to read a Us newspaper. Better nothing than a partial source.Cia Factbook lists should be cancelled in all articles that report international subjects,not only here.Wikipedia is in english but isn't an Us newspaper.It has a low profile in this way.Cia Factbook is good only for internal Us articles.You're doing in this way only propaganda and giving not official datas for world organizations.Is there anybody to reply hehe? Otherwise we can set also EU official list or Burkina Faso list for gdps.Let's try Burkina Faso world gdps list hehe! It could have a truth better than Usa.And the answer is blowing in the wind...hehe All people know this.Wiki is opened today because has money from Cia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.41.66.49 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sort of factual data backing up your claims that the CIA is biased as a source or is this just opinion? The CIA has no more or less reason than other sources to put up false data. 24.126.30.61 (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

CIA is a national source so is partial.Nobody trust it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.41.79.203 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We cannot remove a source merely because it is a "national source". That would leave us only with UN documents are reliable sources, which would be plain silly; as the UN does not have information on all topics. Arnoutf (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * CIA is not merely a national source. They are a spy agency. A spy agency is not a non-partisan organization. The objective of a govt source meant for monitoring economic activity and one meant for sabotage differs very much. So CIA cannot be called non-partisan. Edbull (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The CIA is intended to be an objective source for practical national purposes. It would make no sense to inflate American numbers simply for propaganda purposes, as that would simply cause mistakes to be made in the government offices that rely on these figures. The fact that they do not differ much from other sources is another reason to reject your claims that they're partial. I also imagine that the CIA is probably one of the few institutions in the world that actually has the resources to compile these using objective statistical methods. It would make no sense to reject them. They are not a biased source.65.0.85.109 (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Spy agency belongs to a different category. We don't need those figures if there exists specific professional economic organizations like the IMF and World bank which provide valid data.Edbull (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a stronger reason for getting rid of the CIA World Factbook numbers is that it seems to pretty much be a rounded version of the IMF numbers. 202.1.105.230 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * can be. Above all it's a spy agency. No need to keep list from spy agencies. Edbull (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

CIA Update is ready
If you look at CIA oficial page you will see they have the gdp (2011) for mostly of countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Research
There is no source which compares the economy of the EU to countries. Thus it is original research. If the EU is to be added back to the list, it must be properly sourced with respective comparison from a trusted source. 75.250.165.3 (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

CIA not only does it but also actually assigns EU a rank, unlike what is done in this article where EU is listed but not ranked.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

A preliminary statement o the introduction section of EU page on CIA Factbook:

''The evolution of what is today the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's hybrid intergovernmental and supranational organization of 27 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history. Dynastic unions for territorial consolidation were long the norm in Europe; on a few occasions even country-level unions were arranged - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were examples. But for such a large number of nation-states to cede some of their sovereignty to an overarching entity is unique. Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has certain attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, currency (for some members), and law-making abilities, as well as diplomatic representation and a common foreign and security policy in its dealings with external partners. Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook. However, because of the EU's special status, this description is placed after the regular country entries.''

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html  201.82.129.81 (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If you decide there is reason for revert, please annotate that in your revision and address it in talk.Blind reverts without context are not only mysterious, they are rude. 75.250.165.3 (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Usa prople don't like to be second behind EU.Easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.22.156 (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

2011 Official data from the IMF is out
Can someone please update? http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=47&pr.y=13&sy=2011&ey=2011&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C122%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513%2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C943%2C963%2C686%2C616%2C688%2C223%2C518%2C516%2C728%2C918%2C558%2C748%2C138%2C618%2C196%2C522%2C278%2C622%2C692%2C156%2C694%2C624%2C142%2C626%2C449%2C628%2C564%2C228%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636%2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C453%2C960%2C968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C714%2C128%2C862%2C611%2C716%2C321%2C456%2C243%2C722%2C248%2C942%2C469%2C718%2C253%2C724%2C642%2C576%2C643%2C936%2C939%2C961%2C644%2C813%2C819%2C199%2C172%2C184%2C132%2C524%2C646%2C361%2C648%2C362%2C915%2C364%2C134%2C732%2C652%2C366%2C174%2C734%2C328%2C144%2C258%2C146%2C656%2C463%2C654%2C528%2C336%2C923%2C263%2C738%2C268%2C578%2C532%2C537%2C944%2C742%2C176%2C866%2C534%2C369%2C536%2C744%2C429%2C186%2C433%2C925%2C178%2C869%2C436%2C746%2C136%2C926%2C343%2C466%2C158%2C112%2C439%2C111%2C916%2C298%2C664%2C927%2C826%2C846%2C542%2C299%2C967%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=


 * Updated! Czarccc (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your source isn't IMF source ,but is just a bad copy of IMF.You want to cancel EU.Easy to realize you are Usa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.22.156 (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

CHINA FALSE DATAS
Be carefull in accepting China datas about GDP.They are all boosted.They set in GDP also wht PCC decided to do for the next year.If we check shipping you realize that China datas are just numbers for propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.22.156 (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Net worth by country and by person

It's time for Wikipedia to start an article that it misses about net worth of every coubntery and per person.It's the main indicator of real worth.Wiki misses it.Not good for ecnciclopedy. Net worth is (publch worth + private worth)-(public debt+private debt).

Thanks.151.40.66.201 (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to start that. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (nominal) → List of economies by GDP (nominal) – To reduce the confusion about the content of this article and the never ending edit warring that will remain if the current title remains. Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with Tlhslobus (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC). Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose. The proposed name would open a different edit kind of edit war, where new "economies" are constantly added. Remember that any polity or organisation can have an economy- we have articles on them like Economy of Tamil Nadu. The countries that are listed are listed because they're listed in the sources. The sources have no problem with calling them countries, why should we? Yes, there's a constant edit war, but there are other ways of dealing with that. It's always quickly made clear on the talk page that we just mirror what's in the source lists (i.e., no new entries can be added). Nightw 11:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Here we go again, except this is different - As I have received a THREAT from the person who initiated this discussion. Why? It seems he feels that taking a contrary stand is an "ad hominem" attack when I suggested to twobells he actually read the original text and debates on this issue before initiating change as he clearly had not, or couldn't care less. This issue has been discussed to death. A title of a page need not be 100 per cent accurate - if it is explained in the lede. There are likely thousands upon thousands of pages which don't completely or accurately describe the page. Try "United Kingdom". Sorry folks, there is no official thing called the "United Kingdom," it's called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Or "Barack Obama." Sorry, his ACTUAL name is "Barack Hussein Obama II." On THIS page, we have listed something like 540 countries (totals of the three lists) with perhaps 30 entities sprinkled therein which are not normally considered "countries." To change the name of the page to "economies" is misleading and is not what people would intuitively search for. This page is something like 95 per cent countries, and as long as the additional entities are identified in the lede, there should be no issue. Canada Jack (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Economies" is far too imprecise. Maybe something like "geopolitical economies" but that's just being needlessly opaque. As far as I can see the only real problem matter is with the EU being here, but since that's the sole exception and it's clearly flagged as such by being written in italics, I don't see a convincing reason to move the article. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request that a 'High Risk of Data Vandalism' warning be placed on this and similar lists, along with relevant links to hard-to-vandalize websites
When looking at this list it became obvious to me that several of the data were mathematically absurd. For instance the UK's GDP couldn't be about 97% of Germany's, as shown in the World Bank and CIA figures here, when its population is about 25% lower, and its per capita GDP is also slightly lower according to the same sources in the per capita list. I also knew that the French figures were similarly absurd, but I have no way of knowing how many other figures are incorrect. The apparent cause of the problem seems to be data vandalism, at least according to the contributor above who replied to somebody pointing out the CIA data shown did not match the data on the CIA's website.

Given that such vandalism appears almost unavoidable when things like national and/or ideological prestige are at stake (as they are with these lists), given that Wikipedia's amateur contributors don't have the time to continually recheck all the data in these lists to spot vandalism, and given that Wikipedia is supposed to be about spreading knowledge and not misinformation, it seems to me that readers need to be given a prominent warning of the high risk of data vandalism in the tables, along with links to any hard-to-vandalise websites (such as those of the IMF, World Bank, and CIA) that contain the correct original data.

I'd place such warnings and links on these lists myself, except that I'm not sure how to do it correctly, and I'm also not sure to precisely which web addresses we would need to give links.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Andorra's GDP is wrong
the real gdp for Andorra in 2008 is $4510 billion approx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.231.42 (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

UNSD addition
So far there have been two unexplained removals of the UNSD data. The source is reliable, and it contains all of the counties that are UN members, many of which are missing from the other lists/columns. Is there a logical reason NOT to include the data? Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your are quite right and I wholly agree with you that source and information is absolutely correct, but UN figures hasn't been mentioned in any of the "List of countries by GDP", and almost all the articles you shall see that primarily two sources had been mentioned and the most credible of them all is IMF which most countries use in their own economy related articles. Therefore I would urge you to not put the UN figures thought I must complement you that you did a great job worked so hard to put all those facts.--<font color="#9966CC" face="Comic Sans MS">♥ Kkm010 ♥  <font color="#FF4F00">♪ Talk ♪  ߷  <font color="#4CBB17">♀ Contribs ♀ 13:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF, by your reasoning we would remove the CIA data from this article because it is not included in other GDP articles? The UNSD data improves this article by including many countries missing from the IMF,WB and CIA sections. Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Kkm010 says There is no need to put Un figures since they were not present from first generally three sources are used IMF, WB & CIA) . So what he appears to be saying is because source A does not subsume source B, it is permissible to exclude B soley on those grounds? This makes no sense. Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but only on one ground you can put UN source if you can put it on all other articles "List of countries by GDP" if yes, then go ahead but if I see that you put UN source only on one article the I would revert your edit.--<font color="#9966CC" face="Comic Sans MS">♥ Kkm010 ♥ <font color="#FF4F00">♪ Talk ♪  ߷  <font color="#4CBB17">♀ Contribs ♀ 13:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying because the UN figures are not in all other GDP articles is the reason to exclude this information here?
 * Absolutely. If you can add the UN source to other articles as well, then go ahead and revert my edit, but if you fail to do that then I would stick to my point. Thanks--<font color="#9966CC" face="Comic Sans MS">♥ Kkm010 ♥ <font color="#FF4F00">♪ Talk ♪  ߷  <font color="#4CBB17">♀ Contribs ♀ 13:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, but in this context that's not applicable, sorry.--<font color="#9966CC" face="Comic Sans MS">♥ Kkm010 ♥ <font color="#FF4F00">♪ Talk ♪  ߷  <font color="#4CBB17">♀ Contribs ♀ 13:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and have requested a third opinion. Each article in Wikipedia stands on its own, backed up by the sources.  There is a case to made for consistency for articles, however there is no formal policy.  Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok lets see what other persons point of view.--<font color="#9966CC" face="Comic Sans MS">♥ Kkm010 ♥ <font color="#FF4F00">♪ Talk ♪  ߷  <font color="#4CBB17">♀ Contribs ♀ 14:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I'd say that we should definitely keep it at 3 lists; four is just too many. It cramps my browser to have four lists on the page, and I have a pretty wide monitor, too. Given that, the default would be to keep it to the three lists that are used elsewhere. I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFF is relevant here, either; these are clearly the same kinds of articles, and they use the same data, so decisions made for one would be valid for them all. Check out the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (yes, it is different) to see what I mean. So, at the moment, I would agree with Kkm and say that we should leave it at IMF, World Bank, and CIA factbook.

Now, all that said, I've never been the hugest fan of the CIA world factbook as a source; I wonder if an argument could be made to replace that with the UN list. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I think you are agreeeing with Kkm010 but for slightly different reasons


 * 1) So you think it should be kept to 3 lists for formatting reasons?  I think formatting could be rectified.
 * 2) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS of course is an essay and addresses article deletion/creation.
 * 3) The CIA factbook information isn't included in most of the other "GDP" type articles, so the standard being applied here is not consistent with the sister articles.  The (non-formatting) arugment being aruged here would dictate that the CIA table be removed.  I would prefer not to remove it in lieu of the UNSD data as the CIA factbook is also considered a RS.
 * But if for the sake of argument we were to agree to include UNSD in the other GDP articles, what would the approach be? Should Kkm010 identify each and every article that would be acceptable? What if the UNSD data is not germane to that area?  What would the time window be for getting this information in?

Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with Kkm for different reasons. Point-by-point:
 * I don't know that it can be rectified, but if you have any ideas, then I'm open to hearing them, and it would change my opinion on adding the UN data. The problem as I see it is this: the lists are best presented side-by-side on the page, as it makes visual comparisons between them much easier.  So, whatever lists we have should all go next to each other on the page, without bumping one down to below the others.  But, this means that horizontal space is at a premium.  With three sources, the lists fit together relatively well on my screen at least, with a little bit of space in between.  Four sources, and the lists look crammed in next to each other, and it's a little visually overwhelming.  This is just my subjective opinion, of course, but I think it's a good thing to consider (the issue as a whole, that is, not just my opinion of it).
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay and addresses article creation and deletion in exactly the same way that WP:OTHERSTUFF does (note that WP:OTHERSTUFF, the one you quoted, is in fact a redirect to a section of the page WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). You can't discount one essay on those grounds without discounting the other (well, you can, but that'd be majorly inconsistent).
 * That's fine, but keep in mind that we don't have to include the CIA data. I don't dispute that it would, on the whole, be considered a reliable source, but I've tended to avoid using it myself in favor of data from the World Bank and/or the IMF; I feel that it's not quite as reliable.  I'll also freely admit that I don't know how reliable the UN data is either; my vague first impression is that it's more reliable than the CIA, but it's just that--a vague first impression.  So, I wouldn't contest whatever judgement you make with respect to that. edit: Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it has to be in the article; verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion of information.  We're allowed (in fact, encouraged) to make editorial decisions on what to include and what not to include, and really, I don't see the addition of yet another set of mostly-the-same numbers as crucial to the quality of the article.
 * As far as process, I dunno, I'd just stick 'em in where it makes sense, with a link back to this discussion in the edit summary. If it doesn't make sense to put it in, don't put it in.  IAR and all that.  Like I said, the precedent is the default choice for consistency's sake, but there's no need to stick with it if it doesn't make sense. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the discusion needs to be expanded, and that the consistency between articles needs to be addressed. For now I think I will put the disputed content in a stand-alone article and then at a later time propose a merge. Thank you for your participation. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have reverted the page to the state it was after this talk page discussion was started. It should not have been reverted by Kkm010 after the initiation of the discussion. The page can be changed to any state after this discussion gets resolved. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it is more of an issue of visual appearance of the article with 4 list, a consensus needs to be formed on that, so its essential that during this discussion, the current state be maintained, so others can provide their inputs here. I personally prefer the 4 column view.
 * I think the List for IMF and WB are appropriately needed. But a UN list seems vastly more appropriate as compared to a CIA list, as the latter is an independent civilian intelligence agency of the United States government. If a list must be removed, i think it should be the CIA list.
 * Other/similar article: Has there been a prior discussion to not include this UN list on other articles. If yes, then i'd gladly accept the consensus achieved there. If not, then this is the first time this issue has cropped up, and hence deserves a full discussion. Opposition to the source of inclusion of the CIA list has always been a source of discussion here, but now that we have an alternative list from a reliable world body, this surely warrants a detailed discussion.

Not that anybody has said anything aggressive yet, but I'd like to remind everyone to keep this civil. Thanks in advance. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like this data, especially if it combines in the smaller provinces/etc that are not full members of the UN. In any case it seems like at least a link to the data as an external resource would be in order. --—  r obbie  <font color="#22aaff">page <font color="#ffaa22">talk 21:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the list is the list -- we can't change it. What smaller provinces were you thinking of?  I know Palestine is listed even though they aren't a UN member, if thats any help.  This list seems to be the most "country complete" out of any of the lists FWIW.  Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was arguing in favor of the list! You said "The source is reliable, and it contains all of the counties that are UN members..." which (having not been able to spot the list yet) lead me to believe that the list might already have GDP by countries as recognized by the UN. Not changin it, just the way it is. --—  r obbie  <font color="#22aaff">page <font color="#ffaa22">talk 21:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just didn't want to imply that the UN source is the end-all-be-all of country lists and seem like I was misrepresenting the source in this discussion. FWIW, the UN list has 210 entries, the IMF about 182, 189 for WB and CIA has 191.  I didn't count the unranked entries, so you can probably bump the last 3 lists up 5 or so. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It seems to be the most complete of all lists. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 21:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you guys are so keen to put UN figures why didn't you put 2011 figures and who's going to put UN figures to other List of countries by GDP. I agree that it has the complete list.--<font color="#9966CC" face="Comic Sans MS">♥ Kkm010 ♥ <font color="#FF4F00">♪ Talk ♪  ߷  <font color="#4CBB17">♀ Contribs ♀ 04:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont belive the 2011 figures are out yet. Ignoring the difference of opinions about whether we HAVE to have the same tables in each of the GDP articles for the momement, anyone is welcome to add the charts to the other articles.  Im not sure if UN data has things like PPP, but we might be able to calculate them.  That might be considered OR, so then again maybe we cant.Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PPP data shoud not be calculated by us, OR and all yeah. Addition to other lists can be made if and when UN data is available. The debate here is if 4 lists are appropriate, and if that is not not, then is the CIA list more appropriate here or the UN list. Suggestions/comments? Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 06:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as CIA or UN, both are credible and generally we take CIA data rather than UN data, however IMF data is by far the most accurate and most nations across the globe they do consider IMF statistics.--<font color="#9966CC" face="Comic Sans MS">♥ Kkm010 ♥ <font color="#FF4F00">♪ Talk ♪  ߷  <font color="#4CBB17">♀ Contribs ♀ 09:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Importance of IMF data is beyond question here. But has there been a broad discussion on which list to use (CIA or UN) in the past? If yes, then, i would gladly accept the consensus achieved then. If not, then i think the issue is important enough to warrant a thorough discussion now. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assertion that UN data is better than CIA data, as well as the IMF data being the most accurate for purposes of inclusion.  Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "generally we take CIA data rather than UN data" - I'd like a reference to the consensus for that, if it was discussed. CIA data reflects the political realities accepted by the United States specifically This mostly addresses border claims but also actual claims of debt when governments change, etc, and real differences may exist when it is in US interests to take a stand. Likewise, the IMF data is reflective of the same principles: the WorldBank data used to be as well. For these reasons UN data should probably be used in preference, where available. --—  r obbie  <font color="#22aaff">page <font color="#ffaa22">talk 11:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus and/or a RS which determines the "preferred" data set, it should be made available. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am unable to find reliable sources which comment of the reliability of the figures issued by IMF, WB, UN and the United States Government. But it is reasonable to think that the US Govt (or CIA) is the biased source among all 4 here. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia-en, we don't assume. We rely on the sources.  And even if we were to assume, I would dispute your assumptions about any bias.  The CIA is first and foremost a data collection organization manned by thousands of professionals, and secondly a spy agency. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am saying, if.... And i think the page Central Intelligence Agency would disagree with you. Try adding what you think about the agency to its lead section, if that is what the agency really does. The CIA is a US Govt agency, and so what it would release to the public will have the POV of the US govt, hence its neutrality as compared to the UN is in doubt here. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 10:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should leave it up to the reader to decide the veracity of the RS. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

More stable measure
Given that we're measuring in US dollars, if the US economy takes a nosedive, it makes everyone else look like they've had great years. If might be beneficial to include a more stable measure, such as "2012 US dollars." 206.116.243.76 (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Annual updates
I am trying to update this page in Mongolian as few years ago I translated. Is there any automatic coding updating method on this annually changed table info or is this all done manually by hand? Thank you. Orgio89 (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Manually. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:green"><i>Obscure Reality </i>Ping me 11:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

GDP info
This article gives the amount for each country's GDP in "millions" of dollars. I can't help but think since we are talking about nations, this should be in "billions" of dollars, if not "trillions" Is the United States' annual GDP really just 15 million? I mean, really? And some nations on the bottom of the list are in the thousands of dollars; really? Doesn't seem right. -Also, associations like European Union or Arab League should be removed from the list and simply inserted at the bottom after the final country on the list. European Union and the Arab League are not countries and therefore should not be inserted into the list as though they are. The Arab League doesn;t even have a currency, and although E.U. does, it is not a nation, as the individual nations of the E.U. are ALSO on the list. If this is the case, why in the world is NATO not on the list? Wouldn't that be the same thing? It's not a nation either like E.U. or Arab League, it doesn't have a currency like the Arab League. But let me guess, because the United States is in that organization an we know how anti-American sentiment tends to run, even among Americans themselves sometimes. That's the only reason that seems to make sense that NATO, or even ASEAN, isn't on the list by E.U. and the Arab League are. The truth is, none of them should be on the list; they are not countries. There should be a separate chart after the first chart, and it can show the list of these organizations based on their GDP. -Really, how can the E.U. and Arab League be added, but NATO and ASEAN left out?


 * Agreed. EU does not belong in a list of countries. Instead, a list of economic confederations by GDP needs to be created. I removed it. Mopenstein (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But Eurozone should be in the lists! They use a single currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.205.27 (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not all the countries in the EU use the Euro (for instance Sweden or the UK) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.70.18.221 (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The difference between EU and the others is that EU is a new kind POLITICAL BEING similar to a nation (Constitution,political system,economic system,military system and so on) and the others are just only economic or military or whatelse beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.120.60 (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Top 20 Countries using all kind of Data
This List has the porpoise to compare all Data on the same list by using the highest numbers for each country of the same year, 2012. It uses all kind of sources and its allowed to count countries together like Chinas special administrative regions to have a comparison.

There should be a list using all sources together, because you cant just base your source on imf and wordbank, they need way to long and are often wrong and outdated, imfs prognosis are also just assumption soon in april we gonna see how the data will look like. Many governmental statistics are faster and more accurate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_by_population

Just like it is by the list of population which doesnt rely on Un or cia but on governments statics all counted together in one list there should be a list there as well.--Noelmantra (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, this article is not a list about the top 20 countries in the first place. BTW, the word is "purpose" and not "porpoise". A porpoise is a dolphin like mammal.     little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

-yeah great bash be with racism because english is not my first language. I never said it should be primarily top 20, all i just say there should be a list which combines all kind data together too.--Noelmantra (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, you did propose the top 20 list, so I don't know how I could read anything else into your suggestion. And my pointing out "porpoise" to you was not racist. It was meant to help you avoid making this same error for a third time.  Remember the "en" is for English, so we expect editors to have a basic competency in English.  Not that your use of the language is all that bad, but like everyone (myself included) it doesn't hurt to improve.    little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Russian data is totally wrong .It considers inside inflaction.This is a very "selfmade" list.Forget nationalism in economy.Above all from developing countries there's too much fantaeconomy.The right datas are by IMF.The final ones are just little changed from forecasts of October 2012.The rest are opininions.Be patient and next weeks IMF will give final true datas that are very close to the estimate ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.102.150 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

-russians know best how big their economy is, if rosstat says its 2 trillion then it is. IMF makes constantly huge error for example, they said indias economy is just 1.6 trillion or something in 2011 it was constantly changed until it is now 1.8 in 2011.--Noelmantra (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all Rosstat datas must be accepted by IMF as true and and have some adjusments like for all countries.Then IMF will use the right exchange rates to express GDPs in $.I saw you used 1$=30.2 Rubles that is without doubt wrong( Rosstat data is 62.357 trillions rubles).Considering inflaction Italy would be 8th,Russia 9th and India 10th.All the 3 states would be above 2 trillions.Anyway the most important data are Real GDPs (reported by IMF list) and not nominal GDPs .We'll see IMF numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.50.117 (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Table update frequency
Other than cosmetic changes, is there ever a valid reason to change raw data and/or ranks until a source releases their updates? little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of cosmetic entries, can we get some consistency in the display of the numbers. In one column, the figures are entirely spaced using commas, however, in another column, they're spaced using a comma and a period (the European standard). This can be very terribly confusing to an Australian, as the period denotes a decimal place (which would be inaccurate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.39.9 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We should use one standard, and probably the US standard, considering the greenback is the common currency.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. 189.47.252.226 (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

UN table
The new UN table seems to blow up some monitor resolutions. It doesn't fit well on screens from mobile devices as well. Additionally I can´t see the relevance of this outdated table. I´m fine with the IMF, Worldbank, CIA tables. Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.144.63 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

EU, the sources and OR
A recent edit has removed the EU from the IMF & Wolrd Bank tables, with the claim that the EU's inclusion is original research. However when I visit the sources, the EU is included (though not ranked)</S>. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I take that back. It seems the current references do not have the EU listed.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The IMF source which compares countries side-by-side is this one (impressive url!), it doesn't mention the EU. Neither does this source used to support the World Bank comparisons. WP:OR doesn't allow the combining of sources to draw one's own conclusion. The EU is a trade bloc, not an individual nation state as all the others in the list are, so not at all comparable. The EU is compared by the World Bank with other groupings such as the Arab World, the Euro area, the Least developed countries, OECD members, etcetera, but not with single countries. Cobulator (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The EU is not a trade bloc it is a political union with supranational institutions including a parliament. The EU has its place in this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.32.37 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It bears repeating what the CIA fact book says on this subject. As has repeatedly pointed out, there are already numerous "countries" on the list which are not countries, yet the focus is never on Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom (whose constituents are the countries of Scotland, England, etc.) or other non-countries but on the European Union. Which to me suggests an anti-EU bias. Even though its inclusion on this list is entirely relevant especially since the key criterion here is that of a "single economy" rather than a definition of a state. AND that sources list the EU on their "country" list. The POINT of this page is, after all, not to define what "country" means but to compare the sizes of economies.(!) To arbitrarily exclude the world's largest economy is to render this page largely meaningless as it would not reflect reality as it exists in 2013.


 * The evolution of what is today the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's hybrid intergovernmental and supranational organization of 27 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history. Dynastic unions for territorial consolidation were long the norm in Europe; on a few occasions even country-level unions were arranged - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were examples. But for such a large number of nation-states to cede some of their sovereignty to an overarching entity is unique. Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has certain attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, currency (for some members), and law-making abilities, as well as diplomatic representation and a common foreign and security policy in its dealings with external partners. Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook. However, because of the EU's special status, this description is placed after the regular country entries. Canada Jack (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparent basic problems
I'm about to head out the door, so I'll report a couple of apparent basic problems with the tables here rather than editing the article in a rush.
 * 1) The article says, "Click on one of the small triangles in the headings to re-order the list according to that category", but the tables don't appear to be sortable. I did take a quick look at the article and see that some (not all) tables say class="wikitable sortable.
 * 2) The table headings say "Millions of $ (US)", but the figures appear to be in thousands of US$.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 April 2013
Please update values for GDP (IMF) because IMF has released the new WEO database. For example, the GDP on this page for India is still $1.946 trillion, but in the IMF April 2013 database it is $1.824 trillion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishab1988 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2013
Please correct the value for the nominal GDP for Venezuela under the IMF Column. The value of 382,424 is wrong, as IMF states in its World Economic Outlook April 2013 that Venezuela's GDP growth was 5.5%, so the correct value should be a number near 333,000, much lower than the one published by Wikipedia.

190.156.106.227 (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: I have a few issues / questions about this. First off, you'll need to provide a more specific reference to your source - the full IMF WEO is just over 200 pages and we can't ask readers to dig through the whole report. Secondly, "near 333,000" is a very unspecific number to be inserted into a very specific table - is that as good as we have? Finally, are you certain Venezuela is the only number here that needs to be changed? -- El Hef  ( Meep ? ) 03:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Numbers and projections invented by developing countries (BRIC above all).
Many gdps of many countries in the all 4 lists are widely "false" because they are calculated using different methods.The international institutions like IMF,WB and UN  should specify that these methods are totally different presenting these lists.The method to calculate a gdp in the Popular Republic of China is totally different from EU for istance,so we are comparing in the list numbers given by different methods.Today there's a method fixed in early 2000's that tries to uniform things even though it is absolutely ridiculous and not sufficient according to many academics and people of finance.The use of developing countries of creative finance in fixing gdp is too wide to be covered by this method.Try to phone to these institutions about it.They won't deny it.Generally developing countries have easier ways to calculate gdps  and generally they boost them to attract investments.Projections in the long term of many banks are just a propaganda.We can see wide differences with their projections.Propaganda is for emerging funds of these banks or financial societies linked to them.Developing countries developed in the last decade helped by money that arrived from investors of EU and Usa, otherwise they would have been like 20 years ago.If western investors call back their money from BRIC these last ones collapse in few days.151.40.120.60 (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am guessing you are a bitter Brit, angry about a lost empire and a changing world. Maybe these economies will collapse if Western investors pull out their cash. But why would they pull out the money? The typical Western investor is not a racist loser like you. He has invested his money wisely and it his giving him good returns. BRIC countries win. Western investors win. Sorry to break it to you, but the typical Western investor doesn't feel racially threatened if he makes money by investing in the development of China or India.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.247.159 (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Russian GDP reached 2 trillion dollars
-Russias GDP reached 2 trillion dollars. 1 U.S. dollar are 30.1923251 Russian rubles exchangerate using Google at February 8, 2013 for 62.3569 trillion rubles total GDP.--Noelmantra (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC) http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.rian.ru%2Fbusiness%2F20130131%2F265432914.html&act=url

IMF forecast of october is right,it just changes a little in the final result.Russia is below Italy and upon India. According to IMF results russian data should be a little bit weaker than forecasted because of slow in the last 3 months of the year.In the last 3 months of 2012 the average of russian Ruble vs € was weaker,so it will low a little bit more russian gdp compared to italian one.The italian gdp should be a little bit lower too,in fact final 3 months according to Istat were a little worst than expected.According to EU secret services and BP Plc russian output of oil should end around 2032 (Arctic oil included),so the slowing of russian economy will start before.Even world energy will change with the heavy reduction of the use of oil products.About 2050 don't worry there are banks that forecast that italian economy will be larger than the russian one like HSBC.Thinking about 2050 is inventing and not forecasting economy.According to to PWC in 2050 an italian (even Russia would grow 4% by year) will be at least twice richer than a russian. Today an italian is 18.5 times richer than a russian according to central banks datas and Credit Suisse Wealth Report 2012 (September) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.20.128 (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

United Nations list
Why is it even there? For reference purposes its useless, its outdated and its squashed into the page.<font face="Rage Italic" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:green"><i>Obscure Reality </i>Ping me 11:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we please remove this extra table? Yes, it's outdated, but it's also pushing the other tables off the page in resolutions smaller than 1152px. If it must be kept, it needs to be moved onto a lower line and not stacked against the others...  Night  w   09:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

So, the item was put back without comment here. What's the argument for keeping this table? Anyway, as I said above, it needs to be moved to another line per WP:ACCESS.  Night  w   09:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The list not outdated. The UN updates their data every two years.  Why don't we make 2x2 tables, but of course there will be debate about which tables are first.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I really like the idea of 2 x 2 table matrix. We could do so alphabetically. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 20:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * we could also do a 4 col list like we currently have and change millions to billions.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the 4 columns (i actually supported that, as you can see in the archives here). I have a wide screen laptop, but from earlier discussions, i suppose those with standard screens have difficulty in fitting that into the screen width. But everyone i know use wide screens, so i am not tested that. Millions to billions would be a great way to reduce column width. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 23:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 4 cold on a tablet is fine as well.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 23:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Little green rosetta's "Restore sourced data": That's twice you've used that edit summary, but it doesn't address the issues. Not one of those issues presented reflect a problem with the sourcing. The values presented are already in billions (the col-headers are incorrect). As I said above, the four tables only fit on resolutions wider than 1152px. You should be able to preview the page in lower resolutions by adjusting your display settings. A 2x2 setup will work better. The data by the IMF and WB should be presented first, since these are the most authoritative sources on the subject. Certainly not the U.S. government, nor the United Nations Statistics Division.  Night  w   03:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The 4 column table looks fine on 768px, so I don't see what the issue would be with 1152px, but I will test this later to be certain.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you must be either viewing the site through mobile view, which condenses the view through font, or you have a different font size enabled than the default. Pixels are pixels. The current width of all four tables combined is 1084 pixels. The whole page is stretched out to 1319 pixels in total. So anybody using a horizontal resolution lower than that will not see the full page.  Night  w   13:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm using en.wikipedia.org, and it looks fine. PC resolution of 1440x900 is also fine.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 06:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What if you are using a potato to view the article? Jokes aside, looks fine at 1920x1200. Id say if editors are having problems they should check default settings etcAntiochus the Great (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course it does. 1440x900 and 1920x1200 are all wider than 1319 pixels. Again: anybody using a horizontal resolution  lower  than that will not see the full page. You are both viewing the page at higher resolutions, so it will look fine to you. But it doesn't follow the manual of style for accessibility.  Night  w   13:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Micronesia
On the UN table, Micronesia is listed twice, as just "Micronesia" and as "Micronesia, Federated States of". The latter gives a GDP of $318M, while the former gives $990M. I checked the UN source data, and only the $318M figure is on the table. I will change it if it is wrong, but because the UN source table is so detailed, I would prefer to have a second set of eyes check this first, just to be sure. Thank you. <font face="Century Gothic">  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just took the chance to check the UN table entirely. The just "Micronesia" entry, with $990M, is a bogus one and should be removed. Probrably included by some random vandal. Besides it, Argentina GDP is given wrongly as the same of Norway, $485,416M. The correct value is $448,165M. Monaco GDP is wrong as well. Probably another vandal's job. The correct value is $5,917M. The same with Samoa GDP. The correct value is $667M. That's all I found after checking. 201.93.37.70 (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit war!
This is my first time stepping in and I just wanted to say that I think a full discussion of the original-research/not-original-research argument should take place here rather than in the edit summaries. Kookiethebird (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources do not list the blocs (EU, EFTA, NAFTA, etc.) alongside, or compare them with, the individual nation countries, so to do so in the article is a contravention of WP:OR. Cobulator (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

VANDALISM
Somebody (may be an Usa boaster) cancelled EU from official lists of IMF estimates of Gdps.EU is in the list of IMF as reported at the point 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.36.33 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia or Ameripedia?Reality is different from Usa people will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.36.33 (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * EU does appear on the list, though it's not ranked - because it's not a UN member. HOOTmag (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey,i'm writing about IMF list.Somebody cancelled it.Usa are liar.The first i meet i kick him on the face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.36.33 (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the IMF list ever included data for EU? What is this data? HOOTmag (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Check the referring number 5 below all list.EU is in the iMF list below World.151.40.36.33 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems Wikipedia protects Usa vandals or may be they are the vandals.All for Usa propaganda.151.40.36.33 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems nobody is guilty. You didn't add the entry properly, so I will do that. HOOTmag (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

-hes right not for IMF but for worldbank http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/countries/XC-EU?display=graph

as you can see worldbank has also data, when i put into it someone removed my edit. Why is it also not allowed to put eurozone into it too?--Quandapanda (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So you 1. Assume it's an American..based on...nothing. 2. Desire to include the EU, a non-country, and 3, troll about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

EU is in the IMF list.The rest are opinions,vandalism and propaganda.151.40.17.196 (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The European Union is not a country and should not be listed on this page, unless other trade agreements are, like NAFTA, ASEAN, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.117.62 (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Somebody (may be an EU boaster) added EU to official lists of IMF estimates of Gdps. Neglected to add NAFTA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.214.167 (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2013‎ (UTC)

GDPs & GDPs
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasoso1 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In the article should be specified (as also IMF reports) that the criteria used to calculate a GDP are different from area to area ,from country to country.Just to give you an idea Popular Republic of China consideres in GDP even what the PCC decided to do for the following year.In USA or EU criteria this is impossible.Many developing countries have no clear counting.Last year only the 10% of chinese shipping was moving while they declared a high real growth rate.All people in the financial world realize easily that these numbers in these countries are invented and destined to be criticized first by media (see CNBC and Bloomberg) and then by the same international authorities (even my uncle that is in pension today said these things and he isn't at all IMF President).Nobody trust today in the financial world chinese GDP for istance(and others).This happens above all in the comunist and former comunist states where numbers are too planned and artificial (they remember the 5 years plans of comunism).That's why it's important to write about different criteria to calculate.It's an already started story that will develope for these countries.Even S. Francisco Fed and others checked for istance chinese GDP because of huge doubts.151.40.17.196 (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

RoK
RoK figure is different from that on the page for RoK, by a percent or two,. I think.Kdammers (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

billions, trillions
Due to the possible confusion of a "billion", or a "trillion" (short scale or long scale?) is it a better idea to report money amounts in millions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.10.58 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

New data have just been published by IMF
New data.

HOOTmag (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC) -its estimate--Crossswords (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

List by the United Nations
Sierra Leone: 4,337 --62.156.0.247 (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

European Union on list (here we go again)
One Cheryl Keith, who thus far refuses to engage in discussion on her substantial change to this page - to in effect ignore the sources on this issue - has seen fit to omit the European Union, though not any of the other "non-countries" from the list such as Hong Kong, and the UK. As I pointed out this issue has been long-debated with the consensus being to leave entities on the page as per the sources.

But, to summarize: 1) this is a page comparing ECONOMIES, not comparing countries per se. 2) While often saying "countries" in the source lists, the sources list entities which are not countries, but dependencies, territories and in the sui generis case of the EU, that entity. 3) As the CIA in their discussion of this issue, the EU stands alone as an utterly unique entity with its own parliament, flag, anthem and currency, let alone a single national bank for its eurozone members. While strictly speaking, it is not a country, these lists have NEVER been restricted to "only" countries, but as a source for comparing relative economic weight of various entities. Since it acts in many ways as a single united economy, the CIA and others see its inclusion not only warranted but, more importantly, relevant. Canada Jack (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Canada Jack, The title of the article IS "List of countries by GDP", so yes it is only about countries, so the EU has NO place on it whatsoever the sources/references. Change the title to reflect what you want otherwise the EU will continue to be removed. AND, if the EU stays then the member states need to be removed. Can't have your cake and eat it too.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The title of the article IS "List of countries by GDP", so yes it is only about countries, so the EU has NO place on it whatsoever the sources/references.


 * That's the title because that is what this article is about - with some exceptions noted, in the lede. I am constantly amazed at how touchy so many Americans are about the European Union being placed above their country. I note that none of these posts EVER complain about the inclusion of the United Kingdom, or of Hong Kong, neither of which are countries. (Ask a resident of Edinburgh what country he lives in - he won't say the United Kingdom.)


 * Change the title to reflect what you want otherwise the EU will continue to be removed. Instead of promoting vandalism, Degen, gain consensus first. Your point of view has been discussed - and rejected. That's how things work here at Wikipedia. Try Conservapedia if you want an American-centric on-line encyclopedia. Frankly, a list comparing economies would be irrelevant without the world's biggest economy - the European Union - included. A conclusion the CIA itself has come to in their country guides. Canada Jack (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason why Hong Kong can be included is because it does not count towards (AFAIK) China's total. The reason why the United Kingdom is included is because it is a sovereign state, and as none of its constituent countries are included on the lists, there is (again, like with HK and China) no 'overlap'. The EU on the other hand is not a sovereign state AND including it on these lists creates an 'overlap' as its member states are (rightfully) included. If anything, including the Eurozone on these lists makes more sense than the EU as it is a currency union and therefore operates as one economy. Argovian (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Is Hong Kong a country? No. Going by the logic of many here, we'd need to omit Hong Kong and add it to China's total. I have yet to hear such a proposal. Is the United Kingdom a country? No, it is a "state" and consists of several countries, such as Scotland and England. Again, to be consistent, we'd need to omit the UK numbers and list Scotland, England etc as separate entities. Can't have it both ways. Either we accept the lists as they are, or we arbrittarily omit economies that aren't "countries," whatever a "country" is. What many don't seem to appreciate is that the page is a comparison of ECONOMIES, not a comparison of COUNTRIES, per se. And several of the list-keepers are explicit on this point - as is the page. Is the European Union ever considered a single economy? YES. That's all we need to know. Canada Jack (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If it is indeed a comparison of not just countries but any type of entity such as the European Union, I suggest we rename the page to "List of economies by GDP (nominal)" as the name of the page is currently "List of countries by GDP (nominal)". Until the page is renamed, the European Union should not be on the list seeing as it is not a country.--Kgartm1185 (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No need to do so. We are talking about comparing economies, some 95% or so of which are country economies. Therefore, the page is named "list of countries by GDP," with the few exceptions to this duly noted in the opening lede. Most people searching for a comparison list of economies do so by country, and source lists also list by "country" but list other economies which do not fall neatly under that heading. There are many examples of lists at wikipedia with a catch-all heading but which include exceptions. List of national capitals in alphabetical order is one, which includes capitals of non-nations; List of countries by population (graphical) and List of countries by population are two more; List of countries by population growth rate is yet another. Those lists don't have similar arguments on their pages, I fail to see why this page is any different. Indeed, I have yet to hear an objection to the inclusion of Hong Kong or other non-countries here - it's always about the EU, which suggests a bias from those who raise concerns. Check the previous discussions on this same issue. Canada Jack (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the reason there has been objection to the European Union is because it is a group of countries whereas Hong Kong is not.--Kgartm1185 (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I doubt that. I believe it has more to do with national pride than anything else. Hong Kong isn't a country, just in a different way than the European Union isn't a country. Not sure the nuance here you are seeking - while there may some debate over the precise definition of country (as with the United Kingdom), there is no debate on whether Hong Kong is a country. So there is a double standard at play, for whatever reason. Canada Jack (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case, I suggest we remove Hong Kong from the list since it is not a country as well as the European Union.--Kgartm1185 (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kgartm1185 that we omit Hong Kong. It might be better suited for an article about economic policy/idealogy differences than a ranking by country.  As for Canada Jack, he/she appears determined to undermine the article.  Introducing the EU only seems to serve the purpose of displacing the US as the leading economic country and nothing more--the EU is not a country.  I would also like to see the commentary on WHY the US is the leading economic power REMOVED or linked to competing theories on why the US leads.  Simply suggesting it is somehow population based is silly as best.  It is probably best this article leave out the subjective. chubinator  — Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Canada Jack. I would suggest ignoring Kgartm1185, as he appears to have no legitimate policy issue with the inclusion of the EU, but is instead arguing to deliberately violate Cherrypicking! Sometimes it is best to not feed the trolls. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See the discussion at Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP). --John (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia
the wrong map of russia

where is crimea?


 * Southern Ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.24.124 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014
Hello, The GDP of Nigeria was recently revised to reflect other sectors of the economy not taken into account before 2010. However, this Wikipedia page has not been revised to reflect that change. Kindly edit the figures on this page to reflect the change.

Old Value = 246 Billion New value = 510 Billion

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600734-revised-figures-show-nigeria-africas-largest-economy-step-change

Kind regards, Jubilee

Adjubilee (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done by Khalidshou. Stickee (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Stickee (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations
If we are adding the EU and the CIS we also need to add THE Commonwealth which in 2014 produced a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of $10.450 trillion, representing 17% of the world GDP when measured in purchasing power parity (PPP) and 14% of the Gross world product when measured nominally. This represents the second largest PPP and nominal GDP in the world so I believe it is highly relevant the only problem is that the flag template doesn't seem to work for Commonwealth of Nations which is strange as the flag is in the db. Twobells (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not in the sources, the others are. Canada Jack (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, its not strictly in the source is it. In fact, it is in the Country Group database, not the Country database of the WEO. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

2019
Where does the 2019 data table come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.45.164.91 (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I added the source to the article. You can find it there. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Kenya double-listed on first list.
It's listed once at 72 and again at 88. Something has gone wrong here.

Etoombs (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Independent States??
Why not add THE Commonwealth then? Seems rather silly to add the EU and the CIS but not add the Commonwealth of Nations which has the 2nd largest by GDP to be perfectly frank. Twobells (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Same thing applies on the Arab World.--37.8.74.211 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan missing from UN list
The title says it all. It is on other lists.

Etoombs (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In line with some countries, such as the United States and Japan, the United Nations acknowledges that Taiwan is part of China and not it's own country. The Haz talk 00:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to change the ref of the current GPD per country as per the current fig. of 2015, since all the data presented was very old, but there was some error occur during doing so, pls reverse the changes and try to put the recent data figures, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.133.152.66 (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Data outdated
Most of the data on the list is outdated by at least two years please could someone update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.17.91 Bodha2 (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Data for 2015 is not available anywhere. 2014 is only available from some sources.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sint Maarten overstated by CIA
GDP of Sint Maarten in the CIA factbook probably overstated by about 1000x. See CIA Factbook (compare PPP with official Batternut (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

IMF 2015 edit skirmishing re estimated or not
Pinging, , ,. It seems to me that if we exclude the IMF 2015 report figures as being estimates (shaded cells), then most of the IMF 2014 report figures should also have been excluded, which they weren't. Batternut (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2015 numbers are all estimates. Every last one. I know that many countries will be estimates in a given year as not all report annually, but the 2015 numbers are premature to include in the table. The year isn't even over so all they have are estimates. Though frankly we could stand to remove 2014 as the majority are estimates (2013 is mostly complete). Link for year comparisons  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 14:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue is, the 2015 figures are pure projections, with the 2015 FY not even being over. While the 2014 figures are preliminary figures arrived at through good practice based on official national data recorded throughout the 2014 FY. So while both figures are indeed estimates, there is in fact a huge difference. On this basis, the 2014 figures are widely used by authorities worldwide, while the 2015 figures are not.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * To be precise, the 2014-15 financial year is over for many countries, including Japan, UK, India, Australia etc, and their estimates shouldn't be too far out. FY 2014-15 is still running for most countries though. Batternut (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense, considering most countries use a standard calender year (January to December) as the basis of a FY; Or alternatively, April to March (in Britain etc). I cannot think of a single country still in the 2014-15 FY. At present, the global economy is in the 2015-16 FY.Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, sentence 2 was badly worded. Try this: FY 2014-15 is still running for the USA & Thailand; for most other countries, ie those whose financial year is Jan-Dec, their year is still running (obviously). I wonder what the IMF, the UN, the CIA etc do for non-calendar financial year countries - do they chop up the 2014-15 and 2015-16 FY GDPs to produce their 2015 GDP? Batternut (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, why not use IMF estimates? All GDP figures are estimated to some degree anyway. I believe the UK stats office regularly changes past GDP figures in the light of new data. Given that this article shows all GDPs in USD, all those figures are at the mercy of fluctuating exchange rates. I'd think the accuracy of the IMF estimates would be more than smothered by exchange rate variability. Batternut (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * IMF estimates for 2015 are projections, because 2015 is still running. While IMF estimates for 2014 are based on official national statistics (such as the ONS in the UK etc). So while both figures are estimates, there is great disparity in how those numbers are reached, and thus how they should be used. As for your issues with FY's, you are completely contradicting yourself; First you say the USA has completed its 2014-15 FY and most countries haven't, now you say the USA hasn't and most countries have... well which is it? Because obviously you don't.
 * I neither said USA had completed FY 2014-15, nor that most countries hadn't. Read the above more carefully please chum. Batternut (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So let me tell you; Regardless of whether or not a country runs a FY from January to December, September to October, or April to March... the IMF always runs a January to December FY. Every 3 months (called a quarter), each country reports their economic data to the IMF. Worldwide, each quarter runs as follows for every country; 1st January to March; 2nd April to June; 3rd July to September; 4th October to December.
 * So considering we are only in the 3rd quarter of the IMFs 2015 FY, how can we possibly use the IMF projections for this year? The only figures we can rightly use are last years (2014), as although 75%ish are still estimates for last year, at least those estimates are based on official data for every quarter of 2014.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Antiochus, these comment above are informative. The distinction between estimates and projections is somewhat blurred by the 'IMF staff estimate' term used by them in their reports. Batternut (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, looking through the talk-page archives, this topic has come up many times. Consensus appears to back my argument above, not to use the projections of the current year. So per Consensus, we should stick to the 2014 figures, unless you Batternut wish to attempt to reach a new consensus.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems that consensus in the archives does back the avoidance of IMF projections. I concede! Batternut (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please Remove Non-Countries
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands are not countries. They have no place on this list. --173.66.74.186 (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is the EU on this list? If EU is on there, NAFTA and other economic/customs unions should be also. --173.66.74.186 (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd keep the EU and add any other such unions for which data is available. Maybe shade the rows to highlight their status. Batternut (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this just an issue with the article name? We could move it to 'List of countries, unions and other major territories'. Or we can just agree that they are included and highlight their sovereign status somehow. Batternut (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Read the intro and past discussions on the issue. The sources list numerous "non-countries" as this is a comparison of economies, not countries per se, the most common unit of an economy being a country. "Countries" is in the title as it is by far the most common economic unit, with exceptions specified in the lede. Canada Jack (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * US territories do not belong on the list any more than US states do. Please do not put them back on the list. --173.66.74.186 (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Some common sense is needed for this very simple issue. Either non-countries shouldn't be listed, or the title should be updated to something like List of countries, dependent territories, and economic unions, by GDP (nominal) --173.66.74.186 (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the IMF does not list the EU on its list of countries by GDP. It lists it under Advanced Economies and next to G7 countries--on the same level as the CIS; Emerging and developing Asia; Emerging and developing Europe; Latin America and the Caribbean; Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; and Sub-Saharan Africa. If we list the EU simply because the IMF gives data for it, then we should also list the other country groups that the IMF gives data for. --173.66.74.186 (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Similarly, the WorldBank doesn't list the EU on its List of countries by GDP. Instead, it lists it as a "country group," next to Arab World; Central Europe and the Baltics; Fragile and conflict affected situations; Least developed countries; Middle East; and OECD members. Shaking my head... if the article includes the EU under the WorldBank column, it should also include other country groups that the WorldBank puts on the same level as the EU. Or it should mirror WorldBank's List of countries by GDP. --173.66.74.186 (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Verifying numbers
I am going through the sources and verifying the numbers. So far I've done the CIA, IMF, and World Bank numbers.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All numbers updated and verified.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. JDAWiseman (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

European Union or Eurozone
The Eurozone has an economic fact in common, much more strongly than does the European Union. Could/should the combined item be the Eurozone? JDAWiseman (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Neither the EU nor the Eurozone should be included on a list of countries. --173.66.74.186 (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We agree that the 🇪🇺 European Union is wrong. I think it should be the Eurozone; you think it should be neither.
 * Perhaps allow a variation of the question. Can Wikipedia auto-generate from these tables a ranking of currency zones by GDP (nominal)? Given a table of countries→currencies, does wikipedia have the technology to make a table that auto-updates from these tables? JDAWiseman (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we already discussed abouy this: the European Union should be here cause it is a political union (something between a  federation and a confederation) and an economic union (single market etc..). It would be weird to put the Eurozone in a list of countries. Barjimoa (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's here because some of the sources list it, and also because it is often described as the world's biggest economy, so it'd be weird to ignore the world's biggest economy because some think this is mainly a comparative list of countries instead of a comparative list of economies. Canada Jack (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2015
india gdp 2308

14.139.160.231 (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015
The data is of 2014. It should be the latest,i.e, 2015 or 2016

27.49.73.166 (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
 * If you want to type out the updated information and place it here someone can verify it and place it into the article for you. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The European Union
Hello Filpro. I understand where you are coming from, but looking at the archives, the long standing consensus is to include the EU. Also, see WP:BRD. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I do want to start a discussion if possible. Ping others that might be interested. The European Union isn't a country and none of the sources say it is. The sources don't list it among the economies of the countries that this article is titled for. What purpose does the inclusion of the EU on these lists help in a viewer trying to see countries by their GDP? Filpro (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The statement that EU is not a country has been part of all prior discussion. Please check the archives, and only if you are convinced after reading the (several) discussion on this topic that your arguments for removal are substantially different and better than those given before, this proposal will have any chance. If your arguments are the same as those before, it is probably not worth anyones time to relive these debates. Arnoutf (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This is because the EU is a politico-economic union and has some aspects of a country, especially when it comes to the economy. Anyway it is not a country and this is why it is not ranked. This is the long standing consensus here. Barjimoa (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In a list of countries by GDP, we are essentially comparing single markets. The European Union is unique, in that it is a single market consisting of many countries.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The point should be underlined that this is a page comparing ECONOMIES, not a page comparing countries, per se. There are tons of other "country" lists on Wikipedia which include non-countries such as the EU, Hong Kong, etc etc. Since something like 95% of the entities here are countries, that's why the list has its name. The lede spells out the exceptions included. Canada Jack (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

[Typo] The GDP figures should be in trillions of US$ instead of Millions of US$ Nov 23 2015
Hi,

I believe there's a typo on the page. The table mentions the GDP in Millions of US$ but that's actually wrong. You could refer the World Bank's data here, World Bank GDP list Could someone please have a look at it and verify the same?

Sat (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No, millions is the correct terminology. For example; 1,000,000 million is a trillion. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Antiochus the Great, I now get it. But could it be made much simpler by making the table to say simply "USD" instead of "millions of USD". I feel it could aid in easier understanding. Sat (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Why don't we NOT complicate this and make it say "In Trillions"? Why should we confuse every poor soul reading this article? If no one replies to this in about 48 hours, I will go ahead and make it trillions — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * There are several reasons why not Trillions. (1) People have some kind of intuitive insight how much a million is and much less so how much a trillion is. (2) Most of these kind of numbers are usually reported in Millions not in Billions or Trillions (3) Only the top 15 out of the 180+ entries list more than a Trillion, so changing this to Trillions would introduce a hard to read number smaller than one for the vast majority (>90%) of the entries.


 * Considering all this, changing this to Trillions would indeed complicate this for the reader and cause a lot of confusion. Something we should avoid, and therefor we should stick to Millions. Arnoutf (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please replace old 2014 GDP figures with newer ones
The article still uses 2014 data for it's GDP figures.Please replace it with 2015 or 2016 data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior Covert (talk • contribs) 20:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Those data are not available yet.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Verifying lists again
I have verified the data in the IMF list as current and correct.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Russia type error
9 	 India 	2,051,228 10 	 Russia[n 2] 	2,051,228

this looks like someone missed the row in copying and typed twice the same number. Russoas GDP is around 1,800,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.194.132 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks, now fixed. -Zanhe (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Updating 2014 IMF figures to 2016 figures
I just thought I would give you all a heads up about the latest estimates from IMF for 2016 (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/02/weodata/weoselgr.aspx). Isn't it time for the figures to be updated to the 2016 estimates in the IMF column? Tiger7253 (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no 2016 figures... 2015 figures aren't even out yet. Just estimates.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, even for older date they're just estimates. To get my idea, please, see data for any country (China, for example) in an older archives. It is always re-estimated, mostly - multiple times, not just once. So, according to this, using 2015-ending (October 2015 database) projection is not much different from using 2015 (say, October) revision of 2014 data. Especially if you take into consideration that official data for most countries is released now. Just use October for a prediction when year is ended and than re-valuate via April data (or later revision) when it is available. Anyway, that will be more precise than trying to evaluate current situation via outdated data.124.16.10.2 (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong
Hey, I made the edit and did the revert. I don't want to start an edit war or anything. I just want to explain my edit better than I have been in my edit summaries. I came to this page out of curiosity. For fun, instead of sorting by name or GDP amount, I did a "Sort by rank". I noticed that in the first list Hong Kong is at the top, while in all others it was at the bottom. I then copied and pasted formatting code from one of the other "Hong Kong" entries, so that the "sort by rank" function would recognize it in the same way. In my mind, this is an issue of formatting: either all entries without rank numbers should be at the top during a sort by rank, or at the bottom. This doesn't have anything to do with how independent Hong Kong is; other rank-less entries include "European Union", "Puerto Rico", "French Polynesia", and "Greenland". These entities are not comparable politically, the only thing that they have in common is a lack of "rank" in their respective spreadsheets.

Some images to illustrate:

http://i.imgur.com/pQUH5sS.png -- in this image all four spreadsheets are sorted in descending order by rank. In the other three, the order is 1 USA, 2 China, 3 Japan, etc. In the first spreadsheet it goes (Blank) Hong Kong, 1 USA, 2 China, 3 Japan, etc.

http://i.imgur.com/Ev5GkV7.png -- this image shows that when the other four spreadsheets are sorted in ascending order. Hong Kong appears there: it is sorted along with the other unnumbered entities, and below the numbered ones.

"Hong kong[sic] is not a dependent territory though." I'm not sure why Hong Kong being a "dependent" vs "independent" territory has any bearing to the "Sort by Rank" order.

"Factuality more important than structure" I don't know what is "unfactual" about portraying Hong Kong the same way it is portrayed in the other 3 spreadsheets.

If there is some reason why Hong Kong's 290k GDP should be sorted above USA, China, and Japan when sorting by "Rank", then I don't see it. If my copy/pasted code has some political implication that I'm not seeing, then that should be changed to reflect Hong Kong's status *and* be consistent with all other unnumbered political entities.2605:A601:533:E901:E598:3D54:726E:864E (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am honestly not sure how to address this, so I invited members of the Countries WikiProject to comment here. My invitation can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries. Cheers.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

EU Weird 2015 GDP
According to IMF, the GDP of the European Union went from 18,000 billion in 2014 to 16,000 billion in 2015, a loss of more than 2,000 billion in just one year. That seems really weird to me since the GDP should have increased because GDP growth is positive in the EU.

Furthermore, according to Eurostat, GDP increased between 2014 and 2015. 

So why IMF messed their numbers ? Newuser114 (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The value of the Euro lost ground to the Dollar. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Data for current year
Is there a reason to give estimates for the current year, which may change significantly due to exchange rate fluctuations and so on? I think, IMF figures should be changed back to 2015. 95.24.12.135 (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

France
Shouldn't France be #5 now ahead of the UK? According to this article that seems to be the case. http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/683003/Brexit-shock-France-overtakes-UK-worlds-fifth-largest-economy-pound-plungesGiantdevilfish (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That would definitely seem to be the case Mongoletsi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No it's not the case. I don't know what maths The Express uses but they don't seem to know how to count.

The UK economy was 1864 billion pounds at the end of Q4 2015 (see IMF WEO database in the article) and 1879 billion at the end of Q1 2016 (see "GDP at market prices"):

http://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/datasets/ukquarterlynationalaccountsdatatables

France was 2181 billion euros at the end of Q4 2015 and 2194.2 billion euros at the end of Q1 2016, the most recent available statistics:

http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/comptes-nationaux/tableau.asp?sous_theme=8.1&xml=t_pib_val

A simple calculation shows that the EUR/GBP rate must move above 0.856 (1879 - 2194.2) for the French economy to be larger than the UK economy. EUR/GBP was 0.83-0.835 at the time that article was published and is around 0.85 today.

Moreover, the correct way to evaluate GDP is for a full year (or year on year, the last 4 quarters) so the EUR/GBP exchange rate would need to remain above 0.856 for an extended period of time (or move way above) to become official. Right now, the bulk of the data still reflects a EUR/GDP rate of 0.75-0.80 (earlier in the year and late last year).

Finally, this looks to be on the cards. I think the October release of the IMF World Economic Outlook will show the UK and France neck and neck in terms of GDP and France overtaking the UK later this year or next year given the IMF's projections for growth and sterling. But those are for the moment just projections. Premium Junk (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There's India too which is likely to cross either France,UK or both in the next year. Daiyusha (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The European Union is not a country
Unless someone can come up with a good reason not to, I shall remove the European Union from the list. This is a list of COUNTRIES by GDP. The European Union is not a country. MackORell (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

We have discussed this a lot of times. It's not a country so it's not ranked but having some aspects of a federation (especially when it comes to the economy) it is listed. Barjimoa (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that. Having SOME aspects of a federation doesn't qualify it as a country, i.e. an independent nation with its own government. It's treated differently to the countries in the list by not having a ranking position, which shows its inclusion here is tenuous. If a moderator hasn't made a decision on this previously, I'll ask one for their opinion on it. MackORell (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I dont agree with MackORell. The EU is not a country, plain and simple. It should not be listed. By the same token the graphic that shows the EU as though it were a single country is misleading, and should be removed. Molar999 (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The list, for the millionth time, is a comparison of ECONOMIES, not countries per se. Which is why numerous non-countries are listed. If the sources chose to list them, so do we. Which is why Hong Kong appears, and the United Kingdom, which consists of several countries - England, Scotland, etc. - also appears. By far the most common economic unit is a country, but numerous economies aren't so neatly described as being "countries." Since the EU is frequently described as being the world's largest economy, leaving it off the list would make the list irrelevant. Numerous other lists on wikipedia are headed "list of countries by..." but include entities which are not normally considered countries. See previous discussions on this issue. Canada Jack (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The india WAS described frequently as "world's largest economy" that is, since the euro's drop in the past two years... Canada Jack (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The title of the article however is "List of countries by GDP", not "comparison of ECONOMIES". Why would leaving the EU off the list make the list irrelevant? Hong Kong and the U.K respectively are an antonomous territory and a sovereign state. The EU is neither of these.82.2.95.94 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong and the U.K respectively are an antonomous territory and a sovereign state. The EU is neither of these. An "autonomous territory" which Hong Kong is, is not a country. A "sovereign state" is not what the page title says, it says countries. They are not interchangeable terms. The UK may be a sovereign state, but it is composed of several countries: England, Scotland, Wales, etc. Again, the page lists the relative sizes of ECONOMIES, most, but not all, of which are by countries. Canada Jack (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

India
I remember being on the talk page for this article in 2013. At that time, a clutch of commenters from a certain honorary superpower were trying to laugh India out of the list of Top 10 economies. It's 2016. How does that list look now? I will come back in 3 years and check again. God save the XXX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.187.72.155 (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2016
I would please like you to edit your pages that are "LIst of countries by GDP (nominal)", "List of countries by GDP (per-capita)", and "List of Countries by GDP (ppp)"

Please remove the European Union from the list of country's ranked by GDP. The European Union is not a country, so putting it on a list of COUNTRIES is misleading, and confusing to readers.

NAFTA, Mercosur, and other trade blocs are not included in the list, only the European Union. Perhaps there could be a new wikipedia page of ranked GDP of different trade blocs and customs unions.

Leaving it in, even with a footnote, as it is now, just confuses the page, confuses the list, confuses readers, and politicizes a Wikipedia page that doesn't need to be politicized. I use those pages with my students, and without fail, when I have high school students research the top five countries globally by GDP, without fail a student gets confused and provides me a list with the European Union on it.

I have tried on two separate occasions to remove it from your GDP lists, only to find it put right back in.

Garth.olcese (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

EU
Can we remove the EU from the lists (as well as any other intergovernmental organisation that may be found, I haven't gone right the way to the bottom). By all means we can continue to provide the three reported figures from each source in a separate part of the article, but as things stand this entry that is not given a rank number and lists its constituents individually throughout the lists serves only to confuse. I realise that the EU is a type of "sharing club" whereby a member is required to pay the same proportion as dictated by its GDP (so they all take the same hit), and that once the money is in the pot that private institutions from within may seek to help themselves to what they need. That suggests an element of sovereignty but the title of this article is List of countries by GDP so I believe it best to stick to functioning states. --OJ (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2016
Felix.j.najera (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC) the information about, the GDP of costa rica , for the 2016 is wrong , the gdp going to be 54 billions of dollars.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Cape Verde
In the first list, it is spelled Cabo Verde yet redirects you to the Cape Verde page. Can someone make this simple change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gojman (talk • contribs) 15:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the usage of the following names on this page and other Wikipedia pages: Republic of China and Taiwan
I am not an authority to talk about this, but I would like to bring my concern to who may know and care about it. On the current page, the name of ROC and the bracketed word "Taiwan" are put on one line among all the other countries and regions on the tables. It may imply to readers that ROC is equal to Taiwan or Taiwan is a country (not just a special region), which may be misleading. Please find the discussions on the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, where there is a follow-up statement from Taiwan's last president as quoted below: Similar official statement can be found in the discussion of 1992 Consensus. So far, Taiwan is not regarded as an independent state in UN. The so-called Republic of China is neither recognized as a UN member state to date. To respect this fact, there are at least three better commonly used formats that we might want to choose and use instead: "Taiwan, China", "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" and "Chinese Taipei". I think some statement on the Taiwan page and others might be misleading as well in this regard. But I am not sure about them. I think at least we should quote those controversies for the readers' reference if there is no obvious consensus or there seems to be some conflicts with official UN statements. Since most people who live in the mainland China and Taiwan island who know the fact better than most English speakers here may not read and hence correct these wiki pages, we need to be more careful about this. Thank you. I2000s (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Tables
Just a reminder User:Koodfaand, the figures in each of the three tables should correspond with the citation for each table (I.e IMF, World Bank, UN). Antiochus the Great (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017
please change the country name "Taiwan" to the"Republic of China" WGPMO (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

List sort by rank
The sort by rank seems to be alphabetic rather than numeric. A very similar page "List of countries by GDP (PPP)" sorts correctly, i.e., numerically, so I assume this can be changed. Gromitnyc (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2017
Change International Monetary Fund ranking to include Cuba and Somalia with respective monetary totals. Remove Eurozone from same ranking. GillettD (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 not serious neither reliable
Publishing 2017 estimates isn't serious at all.In 2017 real changes.inflaction and above exchange rates can change in wstrong way.This is fanataeconomy.It should be post 2016 list.Not serious job.Benniejets (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This page should be about actual factual GDP stats, not make up forecasts. There is no 2016 actual stats, but some made up 2017 stats.
 * I agree with you. The 2017 make believe stats should be removed.
 * The title of this wiki page is:"List of countries by GDP (nominal)", not forecast of GDP of countries. 175.156.16.78 (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ★ Iñaki ★   (Talk page) ★ 04:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This page should be about REAL economic FACTS and data, not make believe nos.
If you want to publish make believe economic forecasts, please do it on a separate page. Leave this page to actual data. Don't mix make believe data with actual data, this will cause confusion and destroy the integrity of this wiki page. This was never done before in the past, why is this being done now? Please immediately remove the 2017 make believe data and add in 2016 real economic stats. Ridiculous to have 2017 make believe data without actual real 2016 data. I think the integrity of this wiki page has been seriously damaged. Difficult to take seriously this wiki page now. It's just make believe now.175.156.16.78 (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ ★ Iñaki ★   (Talk page) ★ 04:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

No Cuba
The 2016 list does not contain information for CUBA. please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.32.205 (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2017
The gdp nominal of measured by the United Nations is wrong for the EU, if you calculate it is 16,832,631 Guardian101 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —  <font face="Ariel" color="red" size="3px">IVORK  <font face="Ariel" color="Green" size="1px">Discuss 17:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the link that was given already and calculate that is what the number is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardian101 (talk • contribs)
 * ❌ Since the link provided does not actually say that number itself, to calculate it out and include it would be an example of original research, even if a fairly trivial one. We need a source that has the number you wish to include we can cite without expecting readers to perform their own calculations to verify the statement.  Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but where did the number that is listed come from? The link provided has neither the word Europe, Union, EU or E.U. in it so to include it at all is unreferenced research, original or not.  On a side not, is addition really considered original research, Eggishorn??? Alex the Nerd (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Mauritania's flag
Can someone put back the 1959-2017 flag.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 13:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Malawi GDP has a typo
Under the "per the World Bank" Malawi's GDP has a decimal point to delineate the thousands place instead of a comma which causes it to be placed wrong within the list (5.422 should be changed to 5,422)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  00:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Eurozone rather than EU
Though this is GDP by country, some users, perhaps many, actually want GDP by currency. For that reason, as well as Brexit (forthcoming), please could the doughnut chart be eurozone rather than EU? Perhaps both (EU & €) could be in the table? JDAWiseman (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This article is essentially a list of markets (or economies) by GDP. Therefore GDP by currency wouldn't make much sense. Regardless of the different currency's used, the EU is a single market and that is why it is mentioned in this article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

New IMF Data (October 2017)
'''New IMF Data 15 October 2017, Update all figuers please! Russia 1,283.162, India 2,263.792, France 2,466.472, Turkey 863.390, China 11,232.108 now.''' http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=32&pr.y=19&sy=2015&ey=2016&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C672%2C914%2C946%2C612%2C137%2C614%2C546%2C311%2C962%2C213%2C674%2C911%2C676%2C193%2C548%2C122%2C556%2C912%2C678%2C313%2C181%2C419%2C867%2C513%2C682%2C316%2C684%2C913%2C273%2C124%2C868%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C624%2C692%2C522%2C694%2C622%2C142%2C156%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C565%2C228%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636%2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C359%2C960%2C453%2C423%2C968%2C935%2C922%2C128%2C714%2C611%2C862%2C321%2C135%2C243%2C716%2C248%2C456%2C469%2C722%2C253%2C942%2C642%2C718%2C643%2C724%2C939%2C576%2C644%2C936%2C819%2C961%2C172%2C813%2C132%2C199%2C646%2C733%2C648%2C184%2C915%2C524%2C134%2C361%2C652%2C362%2C174%2C364%2C328%2C732%2C258%2C366%2C656%2C734%2C654%2C144%2C336%2C146%2C263%2C463%2C268%2C528%2C532%2C923%2C944%2C738%2C176%2C578%2C534%2C537%2C536%2C742%2C429%2C866%2C433%2C369%2C178%2C744%2C436%2C186%2C136%2C925%2C343%2C869%2C158%2C746%2C439%2C926%2C916%2C466%2C664%2C112%2C826%2C111%2C542%2C298%2C967%2C927%2C443%2C846%2C917%2C299%2C544%2C582%2C941%2C474%2C446%2C754%2C666%2C698%2C668&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a= 89.22.175.43 (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * are you sure that the data is for the year 2017?. AlfaRocket (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2017
119.95.186.237 (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. shiv am (t) 09:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

GDP for 2016 or 2017?
Currently this list has IMF GDP data for 2016, while the "List of countries by GDP (PPP)"-list has IMF's October forecast for 2017. To me it makes more sense to have the 2017 forecast for this list as well, since it's closer to what the current state of the economy actually is.

Lojalist (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

About statistics of 2017
Someone add the gdp stats for 2017 VinyS (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

seconded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.199.66 (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

False information in the Lists regarding India
Certain users (obviously Indian) are changing the list and inserting unsourced untrue numbers into it. Most notably the Indian one (source says ~$2.2 Trillion, and they are manually replacing it with some $2.6 Trillion number). Due to manually insert of the number it is also messing with the ranking format. Most likely, they are completely unaware of what the list is (a data list from source from year XY) and putting in numbers for 2017 and/or 2018 projections into it.

(cur | prev) 17:23, 23 February 2018‎ Rushabhasheth (talk | contribs)‎. . (58,191 bytes) (0)‎. . (thank) (cur | prev) 17:19, 23 February 2018‎ Rushabhasheth (talk | contribs)‎. . (58,191 bytes) (0)‎. . (thank)

PLEASE REVERT THESE CHANGES. It is beyond me how this kind of manipulation can happen on a PROTECTED article. RSoldat (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with RSoldat that the latest revision made by Rushabhasheth for India GDP is incorrect. His changes need to be reverted. Review the correct data in https://data.worldbank.org/country/india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.163.184.17 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018
I agree with user RSoldat in the talk page that the latest revision made by user Rushabhasheth for India GDP is incorrect. His changes need to be reverted. Please check correct nominal GDP data for India in https://data.worldbank.org/country/india 73.163.184.17 (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've reverted the unsourced edits by . -Zanhe (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2018
Country Name	Continent Name	Per Capita GDP (in $)	Population in Millions 	Unemployment Rate	Population Below Poverty Qatar	Asia	127660	2.6	0.4	0 Luxembourg	Europe	104003	0.6	6.5	0 Singapore	Asia	87855	5.6	2.2	0 Kuwait	Asia	71887	4.1	3	0 Norway	Europe	69249	5.2	4	0 Ireland	Europe	69231	4.8	6	8.2 United Arab Emirates	Asia	67871	9.3	4.3	19.5 Switzerland	Europe	59561	8.4	5.2	6.6 United States	North America	57436	323.1	4.4	15.1 Saudi Arabia	Asia	55158	32.3	12.8	0 Netherlands	Europe	51049	17	4.4	8.8 Bahrain	Asia	50704	1.4	4.1	0 Sweden	Europe	49836	9.9	6.1	15 Iceland	Europe	49136	0.3	1.9	0 Australia	Oceania	48899	24.1	5.8	0 Germany	Europe	48111	82.7	3.7	16.7 Austria	Europe	48005	8.7	8.6	4 Denmark	Europe	47985	5.7	5.8	13.4 Canada	North America	46437	36.3	6.6	9.4 Belgium	Europe	45047	11.3	7.6	15.1 United Kingdom	Europe	42481	65.6	4.3	15 France	Europe	42314	66.9	9.6	14 Finland	Europe	42165	5.5	7.9	0 Japan	Asia	41275	127	3	16.1 Malta	Europe	39834	0.4	5.2	16.3 Equatorial Guinea	Africa	38639	1.2	22.3	44 New Zealand	Oceania	37294	4.7	5.1	0 Italy	Europe	36833	60.6	11.6	29.9 Spain	Europe	36416	46.4	16.4	21.1 Israel	Asia	35179	8.5	4.1	22 Cyprus	Asia	34970	1.2	12	0 Czech Republic	Europe	33232	10.6	2.9	0 Slovenia	Europe	32085	2.1	7.1	14.3 Trinidad and Tobago	North America	31870	1.4	4.5	20 Lithuania	Europe	29972	2.9	9.2	22.2 Estonia	Europe	29313	1.3	6.3	21.3 Portugal	Europe	28933	10.3	8.5	19 Poland	Europe	27764	37.9	4.8	17.6 Hungary	Europe	27482	9.8	3.8	14.9 Malaysia	Asia	27267	31.2	3.5	3.8 Greece	Europe	26669	10.7	21.2	36 Latvia	Europe	25710	2	9.8	25.5 Antigua and Barbuda	North America	25157	0.1	11	0 Kazakhstan	Asia	25145	17.8	6.1	2.7 Turkey	Asia	24912	79.5	11.8	21.9 Chile	America	24113	17.9	5.9	14.4 Panama	North America	23024	4	4.5	23 Croatia	Europe	22795	4.2	10.8	19.5 Romania	Europe	22348	19.7	4.18	22.4 Uruguay	America	21527	3.4	9	9.7 Mauritius	Africa	20422	1.3	7.8	8 Bulgaria	Europe	20327	7.1	7.7	22 Argentina	America	20047	43.8	8.7	32.2 Gabon	Africa	19056	2	28	34.3 Mexico	North America	18938	127.5	3.7	46.2 Lebanon	Asia	18525	6	10	28.6 Belarus	Europe	18000	9.5	0.7	5.7 Iraq	Asia	17944	37.2	16	23 Turkmenistan	Asia	17485	5.7	8.6	0.2 Azerbaijan	Asia	17439	9.8	6.4	4.9 Barbados	North America	17100	0.3	9.9	0 Botswana	Africa	17042	2.3	20	30.3 Thailand	Asia	16888	68.9	0.9	7.2 Montenegro	Europe	16643	0.6	18.3	8.6 Costa Rica	North America	16436	4.9	9.7	21.7 Dominican Republic	North America	16049	10.6	14.4	30.5 China	Asia	15399	1378.7	4.1	6.5 Brazil	America	15242	207.7	13.1	8.5 Algeria	Africa	15026	40.6	11.2	23 Serbia	Europe	14493	7.1	11.8	8.9 Colombia	America	14130	48.7	8.9	27.8 Grenada	North America	14116	0.1	24.5	38 Suriname	America	13988	0.6	8.9	70 South Africa	Africa	13225	55.9	26.5	16.6 Peru	America	12903	31.8	6.1	22.7 Jordan	Asia	12278	9.5	11.1	14.2 Mongolia	Asia	12275	3	7.7	21.6 Sri Lanka	Asia	12262	21.2	4.2	6.7 Albania	Europe	11840	2.9	14.2	14.3 Indonesia	Asia	11720	261.1	5.33	10.9 Tunisia	Africa	11634	11.4	15.2	15.5 Dominica	North America	11375	0.1	23	29 Namibia	Africa	11290	2.5	28.1	28.7 Ecuador	America	11109	16.4	5.5	25.6 Bosnia and Herzegovina	Europe	10958	3.5	20.5	17.2 Georgia	Asia	10044	3.7	11.8	9.2 Swaziland	Africa	9776	1.3	40.6	63 Paraguay	America	9396	6.7	6.2	22.2 Fiji	Oceania	9268	0.9	8.6	31 Jamaica	North America	8976	2.9	13.8	16.5 El Salvador	North America	8909	6.3	5.5	34.9 Libya	Africa	8678	6.3	13	0 Armenia	Asia	8621	2.9	18.5	32 Morocco	Africa	8330	35.3	10.7	15 Ukraine	Europe	8305	45	9.9	24.1 Bhutan	Asia	8227	0.8	2.6	13.3 Belize	North America	8220	0.4	12.9	41 Guatemala	North America	7899	16.6	2.9	59.3 Guyana	America	7873	0.8	9	35 Philippines	Asia	7728	103.3	5.6	21.6 Bolivia	America	7218	10.9	7.4	38.6 India	Asia	6616	1324.2	3.4	21.9 Uzbekistan	Asia	6563	31.8	8	14 Vietnam	Asia	6429	92.7	3.4	11.3 Nigeria	Africa	5942	186	13.9	70 Nicaragua	North America	5452	6.1	6	29.6 Tonga	Oceania	5386	0.1	6.5	24 Moldova	Europe	5328	3.6	4.2	20.8 Honduras	North America	5271	9.1	3.9	29.6 Pakistan	Asia	5106	193.2	6.7	29.5 Sudan	Africa	4447	39.6	13.6	46.5 Ghana	Africa	4412	28.2	11.9	24.2 Mauritania	Africa	4328	4.3	31	31 Bangladesh	Asia	4207	163	4.9	31.5 Zambia	Africa	3880	16.6	15	60.5 Cambodia	Asia	3737	15.8	0.5	17.7 Lesotho	Africa	3601	2.2	28.1	57 Papua New Guinea	Oceania	3541	8.1	1.9	37 Djibouti	Africa	3370	0.9	60	23 Kenya	Africa	3361	48.5	42	43.4 Marshall Islands	Oceania	3301	0.1	36	0 Tajikistan	Asia	3008	8.7	2.4	31.5 Vanuatu	Oceania	2631	0.3	4.6	0 Senegal	Africa	2577	15.4	48	46.7 Chad	Africa	2445	14.5	22.6	46.7 Mali	Africa	2266	18	30	36.1 Rwanda	Africa	1977	11.9	13.2	39.1 Zimbabwe	Africa	1970	16.2	25	72.3 Afghanistan	Asia	1919	34.7	35	35.8 Kiribati	Oceania	1823	0.1	38.2	0 Sierra Leone	Africa	1672	7.4	8.6	70.2 Comoros	Africa	1529	0.8	6.5	44.8 Mozambique	Africa	1215	28.8	17	46.1 Central African Republic	Africa	652	4.6	8	0 Aloknitw (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  09:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2018
India $2.65 trillion, GDp rank 5th TEDX1994 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nici  Vampire  Heart  18:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018
The title of this article is "List of countries by GDP". It contains an entry, with references, in each table to the European Union. The European Union is not a country. And the figures provided for it's GDP are a summation of countries already listed, such as Germany, UK, France and Italy. This inclusion contaminates the figures presented and would indicate the inclusion of other customs unions and trading blocs. Bearing in mind that the EU does not use a single currency across all members. CRWPuk (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a list of ECONOMIES, not countries, per se, the most common economic unit being countries, with some exceptions. And this is clearly stated in the lede. The lists go by the sources. The sources include the European Union because it is often cited as being a distinct economic entity, unlike NAFTA and other trading blocs. Also, as spelled out in the lede, the sources list numerous other non-countries, such as Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom (a state which consists of 4 countries, England, Scotland, Wales etc).
 * To insist on limiting this to countries, even when the sources do not, is engaging in OR. Canada Jack (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Indian economy
India is now officially the sixth largest economy in the world. Please make necessary corrections before the page become worthless. Samanthathepirate (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Misleading lead image? on 23 April 2018
I have some reservations about the way the EU is being portrayed in the lead image. It is being presented in comparison to sovereign states and not to other similar economic blocs. I note that in the other tables it appears in in the article it is not given a rank - presumably because it was realised the it would be like comparing apples with pears - but in the lead image it is presented as if ranked second.

There are multiple problems with this. Firstly it is out of scope in the article, the EU - as an economic bloc of 28 countries, is not a country, so with the article being titled "List of countries by GDP (nominal)", it is a misfit. Secondly, it is not usual in the RSes that include it (and not all do so we have a WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV issue in doing so here) to rank it in comparison to countries, although some do compare it with other economic blocs. Thirdly the lead talks about China having moved to second place in the rankings, yet the EU is given second place in the image and China third. Fourthly, reasons given for reverting my removal of it were erroneous: the EU does not have a "unified currency" - its 28 constituent sovereign states use a total of 11 different currencies, the IMF source quoted to support the image does not give "figures for the EU", and although the main table does include the EU, it is not given a ranking, so to claim "The EU was added to the main table after consensus from editors. This bar chart is a mere reflection of the table." does not cut the mustard here.

I propose that we either remove the current lead image or modify it to include only countries (i.e. remove the EU from it and insert the two EU countries that individually are ranked between Japan and India in terms of GDP). -- DeFacto (talk). 08:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess maybe move the EU to a separate different chart image that shows the other economic blocs around the world???PRChina999999999centillionYuanGDP (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the EU from this chart as there is no apparent support to keep it after more than two weeks. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like you are wrong for some of your arguments, and I would not like you made such a change with a misleading view:
 * For the way you introduce your controversy:
 * «sovereign states»: The notion of sovereign state does not appear within the article. As is, this looks just out of topic. Anyway, the EU is an union of Sovereign state.
 * «similar economic blocs»: I am not sure there are economic blocs similar to the EU: USA is more integrated and NAFTA less; CIA says: «The 28 member states that make up the EU have adopted an internal single market with free movement of goods, services, capital, and labor. The EU, which is also a customs union, aims to bolster Europe's trade position and its political and economic weight in international affairs.» (according to the EU page of the CIA factbook).
 * If there is no rank in the table, no rank is needed in the graph. If it helps a different color might help to understand it is not ranked.
 * The probable reason there is no rank is that you cannot rank both the total and its parts.
 * «comparing apples with pears»: this would be comparing dollars and euros or RMB. This is not the case,
 * 1/ «the EU - as an economic bloc of 28 countries, is not a country» with such an argument we could also say that «the USA - as an economic bloc of 51 countries, is not a country» This is not a true argument.
 * 2/ with your WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV we could also say such graph show only one out of three views and so makes a NPOV issue. For the EU, data is provided by FMI, and by CIA CIA list.
 * 3/ To show that China in second, we could change the color of the EU and/or move it in another column, with a comment possibly based on the CIA fact books.
 * 4/ «were erroneous: the EU does not have a "unified currency"»:
 * The argument was «The EU is a supranational organization that functions as a single economic bloc with a unified currency. It is listed on the table for a reason, because the IMF data gives figures for the EU, so the bar chart reflects this. Please do not make edits according to your whims and fancies»
 * If you believe the question of currency is pertinent to GDB list, look at how the UK manage the Jersey pound
 * CIA fact books says: «The EU has achieved a high degree of coordination of monetary and fiscal policies. A common currency – the euro – circulates among 19 of the member states» Wikipedia adds: «All nations that have joined the EU since 1993 have pledged to adopt the euro in due course.» (UK being one of the specific cases) (see euro) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.134 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear ... on 7 March 2018
The EU is not a country. Enough of this ridiculous Wiki propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The list is a list of economies, not countries per se. The EU is frequently cited as being a distinct economic unit (unlike other multi-national blocs such as Nafta etc.), and is, most pertinently, on the source lists. If we insist on making this a list of only countries, even when the sources don't make this distinction, we'd need to remove Hong Kong, the United Kingdom (which has four constituent countries), etc., which is OR. Canada Jack (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The good question is: Should the EU Ever Be Considered the World's Largest Economy? : to be or not to be?
 * Their answer is on their website: https://www.thebalance.com/world-s-largest-economy-3306044
 * This source let understand there are two POVs. So the introduction could say so, based on such a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.134 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is 2017 official figues removed and replaced by make believe figures? Can we have proper real data based on actual official stats and not estimates?
Now, there is no data for 2017 GDP of countries, we only have these estimates of 2018. This is a recurring problem. Please revert back to proper data. If you want estimates, start a new wiki page on that. I want this page to be reserved for actual factual stats. This is stupid, We have 2016 official figures but no 2017 official figues. For those people who are after 2017 figures, how?138.75.28.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, can someone please post back the 2017 figures? 2018 not official obviously.Lneal001 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not? we should have a list for the 2016, one for the 2017 and one for the estimates for the current year. I can suggest to have the List only from the IMF  Which is the only one that gives SDRs and Voting power in the global  economy.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please post back the 2017 stats. Those are the true factual stats. If you want to post 2018 estimates, why is there a need to remove 2017 REAL FACTUAL stats? What about those who want real stats? Put back the 2017 real stats.138.75.25.176 (talk)
 * Might be because estimates are not definitive: one estimate might change to another estimate? If so this estimate might be wrong.
 * The IMF list is not a good one when you consider it does not contain every country (the count at the end)
 * Also, giving 2016, 2017 and 2018 does not give the full picture; for instance, the USA are now ranked number one and EU number 2 which is fine, while in 2014 it was the opposite which was fine too. This does not mean that the GDP of the USA have increased or that the EU one decreased, but that the US dollars is 20% more expensive now than in 2015.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.216 (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if you are hardcore and hell bent on using 2018 make believe IMF estimates based on speculative data, there is no need to remove 2017 true factual stats based on reality
Please restore the 2017 stats. Those are the true REAL WORLD stats. Now we have 2016 true stats and 2018 make believe data. There is no real 2017 stats. This is a ludicrous situation. This page is about economic data. We should be more PRECISE and FACTUAL and EMPIRICAL about economic data. We need facts. We don't need fake data. 2017 factual data should not yield to 2018 make believe stats. We need to be more empirical. This is an economic page, this is not a political page. Can we set a standard here?138.75.25.176 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

World Bank 2017 data is out
Does anyone have a script to port the data here, or is it usually done manually? —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: I wrote such a script. Please have a look to see that the data is correct (I already did, but more eyes wouldn't hurt). —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the new World Bank 2017 GDP data source link> https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2017&start=2017  —PRChina999999999centillionYuanGDP (Talk) 19:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of such a script. I have seen many editors add this manually. Would be a nice idea to write one. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually already wrote the script and used it to put the new data in the article. It's not well-written, a bit embarrassing to open-source in this state, hopefully I'll order it a bit and upload it in the future. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Chart with EU
May I add to the main chart the European Union, considering that it is an economic block? João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say no, because the article is entitled "List of countries by GDP (nominal)" and not "List of economic blocs and countries by GDP (nominal)". If you were to add it, shouldn't we add all the other economic blocs too - for the sake of NPOV? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't support this. That is clearly a list of countries and not of economic blocks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Keeping or deleting EU information on 15 July 2018
Of many of the discussions on this talk page (related to whether to add EU data), I do not see any firm decision on whether to keep it or remove it. I suggest, until this issue has been resolved, to remove the data pertain to European Union. Or I suggest to remove the EU stats from the list, but add instead in the initial paragraphs. It contaminates the list and contradicts the title of the page. Sunlitsky 17:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again? This has been discussed and refused many times, and I refuse it too (meaning I vote to keep it.) The European Union is a distinct, strongly intertwined economic area which pretty much works as a 'virtual country' in economic terms. That's why it's treated as such in the three sources used for this article ---the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations. Removing it would be WP:OR. Further, it is useful info and it doesn't count in the ranking. --MaeseLeon (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But list is not about the economic area, but only for the countries. My suggestion is not to remove from the page, but to remove from the list. The EU stats could very well be added before the list. Sunlitsky 07:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus is to keep EU in the list, as per cited sources, see Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP). I've reverted your unilateral removal. -Zanhe (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There isn't a "consensus" if this is still being disputed. Unless it can be proven that the EU is a country - since the article title is "List of countries ..." - then it needs to be removed. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I believe the pre-disputed state did not include the EU - so that's what it should be reverted to for the time being. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Espagnols.
Hispanidad #3

€UROZONE INSTEAD OF EUROPEAN UNION If the EU is included, then should be also the other trade and economic areas like NAFTA, ASEAN, EAEU etc...so better another article in Wikipedia for economic blocks. Different is the case of the €urozone as it is a "de facto" Confederation with a common currency and customs union.--213.60.237.52 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The EU functions similar to a sovereign state in many ways that those other economic blocks don't. It isn't a fully integrated state, but it is more than just an economic block. Having it here is appropriate, as long as it is called out as being only similar and is not numbered. --Khajidha (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Add in ASEAN on 22 May 2018
If GCC, EEU etc are added in, it is absurd not to add in ASEAN. 175.156.46.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The grouping have been removed pending further discussion. can you please discuss these here. AFAIK, these grouping numbers are not released by any of these agencies. So how were these numbers obtained? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Here there are PWC blocs comparison (PWC source + graph). Graph as is includes both PWC estimates and FMI data, because it would not be logic to miss a big economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.134 (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't add ASEAN because as far as I know it is not an economic union, or am I wrong? Odemirense (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If the other economic unions are excluded does it make sense that EU is included? Odemirense (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree. EU is just a single anomaly on this list. No need to make such drastic changes due to EU. I prefer removing EU from the list if need be.175.156.30.112 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's interesting to keep the EU, but in that case the other economic unions that I had added should also be listed. Unless it's to be considered only economic and monetary union, but in that case it should not be the EU but the eurozone instead and it should also include the West African Economic and Monetary Union, which I had forgotten to add.Odemirense (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My concerns are two fold. First, does the IMF or any other agency like the World Bank release just country wise numbers or in addition to these also releases numbers for different economic unions. If it does indeed release numbers for these various unions then maybe we can create a different column for it. But if it does not (including the EU) then these should be removed. I will spend some time and do a check on this and get back. Second is the argument on which unions should be included, here only those unions for which numbers are released can be included (in the same or a distinct column). We can perform WP:SYNTH on sources and just add numbers up. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say remove the EU as an anomaly. Otherwise we'd need to try to decide which of all the other trading blocs and economic partnerships should be considered to be in scope too. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * By what I've seen in the sources, IMF and the World Bank don't have such groupings, but the UN has data for regions/subregions in 2016: Africa - Northern Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa further subdivided in Eastern, Middle, Southern and Western Africa; Asia - Central, Eastern, South-Eastern, Southern and Western Asia, Americas - Northern America and Latin America+The Caribbean - subdivided in Caribbean, Central America (I think Mexico is included here and not Northern America) and South America, Europe - Eastern, Northern, Southern and Western Europe, and Oceania - Australia and New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. Odemirense (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Unlike those other economies, the EU is a distinct economy, and sources often treat it as such. I've never heard of Nafta or Asean treated as being distinct economies, nor am I aware that they ACT as distinct economies, like the EU when, for example, it enacted its recent law on internet privacy. Further, when one wants to negotiate trade deals, Trump, for example, is free to individually negotiate with Canada, with individual members of Asean - but he has voiced frustration in attempting to do the same with France and Germany - because the economic unit he has to deal with is the EU.

To pretend the EU is just an aggregate economy is as absurd as saying that the United States is just the sum of its individual States. Besides, we already have an example of an aggregate State here - the United Kingdom, comprising several countries, such as England and Scotland. If we are to remove the EU, logically, we should remove the UK. Canada Jack (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the UK is a single sovereign state - as the US is, whereas the EU is a union of 28 sovereign states - each competing with each other for trade - but on a level playing field as they have all signed-up to the same rules of engagement. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * So I looked at the reference for IMF 2018 and it does NOT release a number for the European Union or any other economic combine. I propose we remove the EU numbers since as of now it is WP:SYNTH to include these numbers. We could have used WP:CALC but there is a worry of double counting given the different trade agreements they have within themselves. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Economy of the European Union exists by itself. Now the IMF might not consider it for its own reasons; this is the IMF point of view: "EMU countries remain individual members of the IMF. Since the Fund's Articles of Agreement confine membership to countries, the euro area as such is not able to appoint a Governor or appoint or elect Executive Directors in the IMF. In December 1998, the ECB was granted observer status at selected Executive Board meetings."
 * There are possibly other sources to consider, such as CIA factbook or World bank.


 * Mercosur, EAEU, GCC, SICA, Caricom and CEDEAO also sign agreements with other countries or blocs. Odemirense (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Possible, but EU is a sixty years old bloc which is quite notable to have a Economy of the European Union page, and to compare itself with other players such as the USA or China. Of course, saying so does not remove anything to Mercosur, EAEU, GCC, SICA, Caricom and CEDEAO. Anyway, if the topic is banned on this page, might be a new page should be created with something such as list of economic zones by GDP (nominal), including more economic zones. But for that, reliable sources (such as IMF or Worldbank with data for those economies should be available.


 * All that I am saying is if IMF does not release EU numbers (or any other economic organization or grouping) numbers then those numbers should not be included in the list which is attributed to the IMF. If other sources like the World Bank and CIA Factbook do then we need to have a discussion whether they belong in the same list or a different list. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The EU is usually recognized as an international actor, for instance by WTO: &  and so by members of the WTO. As a matter of fact, the WTO provides EU-28 GDP.
 * Wikipedia is not assumed to confuse the reader by hiding such a notable fact.
 * It is also interesting to note that for trade, the WTO provide two rankings: one with the EU as one, and one counting the EU as 28 states.
 * Now the IMF is the IMF. It would not be illogical that the EU appears in the IMF list if it also appears in other lists. Where you are right, is that no number should not be included in the list if they are not released.
 * Also, when EU number does appear, they should have distinctive sign which let the reader easily understand that this is is a specific data. Distinctive sign could be a gray background color, small letters, parenthesis, italics, etc. such as in the hereafter example.
 * (Also, note that the article table might miss the nts /ntsh tag which might help to sorting by GDP column, as provided in the example bellow)

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto; width:100%;" |}
 * style="width:33%; text-align:center;" | Per the International Monetary Fund (2018)
 * - valign="top"
 * I assume it might be a way to provide data, making clear for the reader both the nature of the EU, and the specific source of the data (if/when needed)
 * I assume it might be a way to provide data, making clear for the reader both the nature of the EU, and the specific source of the data (if/when needed)
 * I assume it might be a way to provide data, making clear for the reader both the nature of the EU, and the specific source of the data (if/when needed)


 * Then, I think it could be added a column with WTO data. Concerning to the existing columns, I removed the EU from the IMF and UN lists. The IMF reference linked to data of the "world" and UN only has data for individual countries, not the EU. IMF doesn't have data for the EU either. Only the World Bank has. The way how I had calculated the date for the other economic unions was by adding the data of the countries that belong to those economic unions. Maybe it was also the way the person that introduced the data calculated those values, I don't have a way to know, it was not in the references.Odemirense (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Rename: List of economies by GDP (nominal)
Numerous comments claim the EU is not a country. There might be reason to consider so, but in the same time it looks like it makes sense to include the EU in some way, as the big number of countries makes difficult to have an overview on this topic.

For this reason I suggest to rename the article as List of economies by GDP (nominal). With such a title, we could keep the useless list of countries, but we could also add more pertinent information.

Limiting the scope to countries ranking only looks like an obsolete POV.

This is not only for the EU: All regions/subregions should be listed. As regions are less numerous than countries, it would help make a graph with the full picture. Sources for regions and subregions are hereafter: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnlList.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.134 (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is the EU acts as a single economy, those others do not. Those others are trade pacts, not integrated economies like the EU. And this page compares distinct economies. The EU, alone from those other regions, is often treated as a distinct economy by the sources. Which is why Trump gets so frustrated in his goals to do bilateral deals - he can't deal with, say, France or Germany in a trade agreement, he has to deal with the EU and its over-arching agencies. It's also why the EU has such weight when it comes to regulation - its recent internet privacy law has enormous impact because of the size of its economy - other trade pacts don't have a mechanism to enact such laws. Nafta, for example, has no legislative body to enact pact-wide laws. Canada Jack (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually wkipedia has a List of sovereign states in Europe by GDP (nominal) which deal with socalled sovereign states and a List of metropolitan areas in the European Union by GDP which deals with so called metropolitan areas. So, why do we say List of countries by GDP (nominal) and not something more genric, such as List of economies by GDP (nominal)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.57 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The UN link provided above could be displayed this way, showing Oceania and Africa which did not appear in previous graphs:


 * + GDP nominal according to the UN by United Nations geoscheme


 * Source: UN
 * }
 * }


 * I prefer getting rid of EU. EU is the problem here. EU is polluting this article and causing disputes.138.75.28.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, to avoid the EU problem there are various options:
 * One option is to provide an overview with this graph: GDP nominal according to the UN by United Nations geoscheme
 * Another option would be to create a distinctive article such as list of economic zones by GDP (nominal)
 * A third option might be to provide the EU GDP in the GDP article, with a small list of main economies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.216 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How about option of just getting rid of EU from this article? Is EU some sort of God, that must be represented in this article at all cost?175.156.135.161 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018
Buttombig20000104 (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * }
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  04:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge tables
Why not to make columns instead of tables? <span style="font: 900 0.8em &quot;Lato&quot;"> DAVRONOV A.A. ✉ ⚑ 14:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The EU is included... why not other economical unions?
IWF measurements includes data for European Union single market (different from the EU; includes Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland), Union_of_South_American_Nations, and ASEAN.

In addition, African Union and Arab League. The pages themselves (that I linked to) seem to include the GDPs.

Obviously they are not countries, they are simply alliances/unions of multiple countries, which is why we include the GDP but not the actual ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markusw0207 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Unlike those other bodies, the EU is a single economic unit, and treated as such in, for example, trade negotiations. Which is why a separate measure of its economy is relevant and why inclusion of other alliances is not. Nafta, TPP etc are never considered as single econmoies, unlike the EU. Which is why, for example, as Trump tries to renegotiate trade deals, he can go individually with members of Nafta (Canada and Mexico), or with the TPP (Japan and South Korea), but can't negotiate with, say, France or Germany indivually. Markusw0207 (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * What about the European Single Market? Markusw0207 (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Why did you put your name on my comment above? The European Single Market doesn't engage in trade negotiations or have a central parliament - the EU does. More to the point, the EU is and is often referred to as a separate economic entity, while I can't recall the Single Market ever being considered in that fashion. Just because there are overlapping agreements and bodies - the Council of Europe, the Schengen Area are other examples - doesn't mean other collective entities are to be considered as separate economies, because only the EU operates as a single economy. And the page is, after all, a list comparing economies, the most basic economic unit being the national one, but not limited to that. Canada Jack (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Kosovo
Is it appropriate to italicize Kosovo in the tables? It seems that the italicized entries are recognized as non-sovereign entities, which I don't believe applies to Kosovo. It is a fairly well-recognized sovereign state. It would seem to me that it is more similar to Taiwan (a sovereign state with limited recognition) than Hong Kong (a largely independent territory with no sovereignty). --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 22:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2018
Hi ! I just wanted to suggest updating the graph at the top right of the page representing the largest economies by nominal GDP. I've made a graph myself that is very similar to the one already in place but with the new IMF data from 2018. (World Economic Outlook Database, April 2018)

Sadly, I didn't any way to insert the image here, so I hosted it on Imgur instead, you can see it there : https://imgur.com/a/c8cnXo3

Thanks in advance for your consideration and have a great day ! Nobody2017 (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see the Upload Wizard to upload the file. Or, if you'd like me to upload the file, please post confirmation of granting permission for its use here. If you have any questions feel free to post on my talk page. DannyS712 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Mistake
The countries' GDP has been accurately upgraded but the editor has forgotten to upgrade the World GDP count which is extremely inaccurate.

In the United nations list, India should be on 6th position instead of 7th position. (Latest) Niket2005 (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing India's position
India's position should be changed to 6th position from 7th position in the united nations list. It needs to be changed according to the latest release from United Nations. Niket2005 (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018
THE EU IS NOT A COUNTRY!!!! AS MUCH AS IT WOULD LOVE TO BE ONE! 90.240.117.225 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus from repeated discussions on this page is to leave EU data in this article. Please seek consensus for changing this before using the edit semi-protected template. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 20:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Charts showing change
I think visitors would like to see charts showing change of various countries over the past few decades. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Why were the country flags removed without consensus?

 * Please undo the removal of the flags. If you want to remove them, seek consensus first.

49.245.29.74 (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Update Image Representing the Top 6 Countries in Terms of GDP
India is now in 6th place in terms of GDP, being France in 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrishnaDasMath (talk • contribs) 09:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Flags
I favour removing the flags from the table per WP:FLAGCRUFT, or do we the necessary "good reason" for keeping them? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Recognizing flags is quicker than reading country names, I prefer to keep them. Lojalist (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please DO NOT post the 2019 GDP estimates
The 2019 GDP estimates might be coming out soon. Please for the sake of GOD, DO NOT post those estimates. This page should be about ACTUAL REAL data. Post real 2018 GDP data. Do not post fake garbage 2019 estimates. 27.104.138.113 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan should be italicised
Since Taiwan is not a country it should be italicized in the listings and not given a ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FittyFitty5050 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @User:FittyFitty5050, the word "country" is ambiguous, so we generally talk about "sovereign states" (which can be generally recognized sovereign states, wholly unrecognized de facto states, and de facto states whose international recognition is somewhere in between) versus "dependent territories." It is true that Taiwan is not a generally recognized sovereign state, which is why its ranking in the list is not numbered.  The reason why Taiwan's name (as well as that of the State of Palestine and Kosovo) is not italicized is because it is not a dependent territory, much less a group descriptor such as "the EU" or "the world," which are the entries that the article states will have italicized names.  Other Wikipedia articles use a font that distinguishes between de facto sovereign states suc as Taiwan and dependent territories, although sometimes they also distinguish them from generally recognized sovereign states by placing the names of generally recognzed sovereign states in boldface.  I don't think that it would be necessary to boldface the names of generally recognized sovereign states in this article because they are already distinguished from Taiwan, Kosovo and Palestine because of their number ranks, but I won't object if you change the font of the names of the ranked sovereign states to bold roman.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The article itself refers to 'countries' and states "Several economies which are not considered to be countries (the world, the European Union, and some dependent territories) are included in the lists because they appear in the sources as distinct economies. These economies are italicized". In addition, in the article on GDP per capita, Taiwan is italicised. I feel consistency should be maintained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.24.152.115 (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I share your concern for consistency, but it simply is not correct (or NPOV) to describe, Taiwan, Palestine or Kosovo as "dependent areas." You are correct that the introductory language in the article does not mention de facto sovereign states that are not generally recognized as sovereign states, but instead of grouping such states with dependent territories I would rather mention in the introduction that generally recognized sovereign states are number-ranked, that de facto states without general recognition are not number-ranked, and that dependent territories and conglomerations are not number-ranked and also are italicized.  What do you think?  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FittyFitty5050 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll make the edit. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

EU problem solved?
I feel that EU problem has been solved. Only the World Bank stats lists the EU. The IMF and UN doesn't include EU data so EU isn't listed. This is correct. Just keep it this way. I consider the EU problem solved. 175.156.164.112 (talk)


 * But surprisingly, EU is included only in the IMF list in the current version. The title of the lists has also been changed to country/territory. Looks like the EU problem is not solved yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.60.105 (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

New Figures of IMF are up
So like i said new figure of imf are up and india should be the fifth largest Economy.so we should make few changes in the article.And here is the link. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2019/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=76&pr.y=17&sy=2019&ey=2020&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=924%2C132%2C134%2C534%2C158%2C112%2C111&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=[User:DataCrusade1999|DataCrusade1999]] (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

What happened to the 2018 stats?
2018 data is missing. 180.129.124.85 (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not missing, the IMF table has simply been updated from 2018 to 2019 data by . KREOH (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2019
please change million to billion in the table header/title box for gdp value. Sdesh89 (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. That would make it incorrect. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan
I looked through the source for the World Bank and the UN, but can't find any stats on Taiwan. Does anyone know where the numbers on the list for Taiwan comes from? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed tables
Just as a suggestion, we can have past data tables as collapsable, maybe 2018 and 2017, now 2019 estimates are visible. Some people may find it useful to have on the same page instead to query it on IMF/UN websites. Write to me if you think the same.--Manlleus (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

2018 UN numbers
2018 UN numbers have been available as of Jan 1, 2020, from https://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/downloads However, not reflected on page yet, which shows 2017 figures. Is there a reason to not put 2018 numbers yet, or is it merely a question of someone getting to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmrinderAroraSW (talk • contribs) 17:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Chart in Millions vs. Thousands?
When I read the charts showing different rankings of GDPs, it is captioned as being in millions. But if that is right, then the US GDP is 21 quadrillion dollars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianbstevens (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Countries with limited recognition
Looking back on this article, there are some points that need some type of update.

We got an article focused on the nominal GDP of countries, so clearly an economic type of article, and definitely nothing where we should add political characteristics.

I think that the "criterias" are just to basic and treats economies/contries as if they aren't sovereign entities. We should differentiate some things. Taking Kosovo for an example, there is a country which has a disputed status, but on a political standpoint. Economically on the other hand, Kosovo is not dependent on any other country, it has an economy with state structures, which functions the same as any other legitimate economy in this world and is a member of different free trade agreements. The same goes for Taiwan, which is excluded in this list because of a missing seat in the United Nations. I think that the criterias should be changed to make this article neutral and legitimate.

My proposition: Treating this article only on an economic basis, deleting the part which excludes states with limited recognition or missing seats in the United Nations and giving the market-participating economies a position on the list, like the sources do. Crazydude1912 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The article's introduction clearly states that only sovereign states with general international recognition receive a number rank. Similarly, in nearly every article that lists countries and dependent territories by certain criteria (such as GDP), the numbered rank is reserved for generally recognized sovereign states.  This is done because if every entry was given a number then the rank numbers would depend exclusively on how many entities that are not generally recognized sovereign states are included in the article.  For example, if every entity receive a rank number, then whether Greece is the 95th or 98th largest country in terms of area would depend solely on whether the source listed Greenland, Western Sahara and Somaliland, none of which are generally recognized sovereign states.  Similarly, rankings for per-capita criteria would vary wildly depending on whether Macau, Cayman Islands, etc. were included.  And for countries near the bottom of a list, whether they are number-ranked 190 or 230 would depend solely on how many states with limited recognition and dependent territories are on the list.  By limiting the number ranks to generally recognized sovereign states, if Kiribati goes from, say, 190 to 185 on the CIA list of GDP by PPP, it would be a sign of improvement in its economy relative to its peers, whereas if every entity received a number a jump from 250 to 240 might be due to 12 dependent territories or states with limited recognition no longer being included by the CIA and that Kiribati actually dropped two spots among generally recognized sovereign countries.


 * Please note that the article uses roman font (not italics) for Kosovo's name, signifying that it is a sovereign state, not a dependent territory. And Kosovo is included in its correct place on the list, with its production being counted as Kosovo's GDP, not as part of Serbia's GDP, since that is how the three sources provide the information.  The only distiction between generally recognized sovereign states (such as Bolivia, Gabon and Russia) and sovereign states with limited international recognition (such as Kosovo, Palestine and Taiwan) in the lists is the numbering criteria described above.  I understand your preference for adding Kosovo (and presumably also Palestine and Taiwan, and maybe others) to the number ranks, but if a line is not drawn at general recognition of sovereignty the rank numbers might become meaningless as the list of entities expands and contracts depending on who the sources choose to include.  When Kosovo achieves general international recognition, then it will get a number, and the number will be a true rank among generally recognized sovereign states, not a meaningless number that will vary based on whether the source separately listed Hong Kong or Northern Cyprus.


 * For the reasons stated above, I believe that the number ranking in the article should remain limited to generally recognized sovereign states. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No such category as "generally recognized sovereign states", it's OR. I agree with, this is just an article about economics shouldn't be any politics involved.Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Following the sources - they do not rank the entries but merely list the countries/territories alphabetically. The sources do not distinguish between nation states and other states/territories. The question is do we want to follow the sources exactly. The ranking is helpful because you can go to a country you want to reference and see its rank. The sortable table fulfils being able to look at the list alphabetically like the sources. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to not include other states/territories (Taiwan, Kosovo etc) in the rankings. We may however want to distinguish such states/territories from the members of the UN by having their entry country/territory name in italics (or whatever). The question is does the table serve its purpose as a reference for the information about the countries in it? Will a reader find it confusing to see unranked entries and what does that mean? If unranking is agreed upon then it needs to be made clear what a lack of a ranking position means. To be consistent ranking Kosovo and Taiwan etc would mean also ranking the EU. I think its simpler that all entries are ranked and the entries that are currently unranked retain a distinguishing mark which is shown in a legend or explained in the intro text Robynthehode (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Same principle as List of countries by population (United Nations), a numbered list, no politics. Also just because it says United nations does not mean it is restricted to UN member states (count them). Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Members of the UN and data produced by the UN are two different things. I was referring to UN member states. Also a list about populations of countries is a different thing to a list about economics. One has a very limited relationship to politics (population) the other has a significant relationship to politics (GDP / economics). The term political economy is used widely. While comparisons to other Wikipedia lists is relevant, what is done in one list isn't necessarily what should be done in another. It could be equally argued that the population list should rank all entries but that's another discussion. Please give a good reason why non nation state entries should not be ranked. Robynthehode (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If we were to introduce the disputed territory of Kosovo* to the list, than the very next day we would have 5 more "countries" added, and the list would go on endlessly, permanently lowering the quality of the article and making UN membership pointless, which would not be an improvement (generally speaking), to say the least.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  21:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Not the case. Firstly the list entries are based on the data from the sources used and would only list entries from the sources. Second you would need to prove that 'the very next day we would have 5 more 'countries' added' etc. Has this been the case in the past? Even if it was editors would simply remove any additions to the list based on the sources as happens in innumerable other articles where editors add information to articles which is unsupported by the sources. Therefore the article wouldn't have its quality permanently lowered. Robynthehode (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Members of the UN and data produced by the UN are two different things." Yep, that's what I said, glad you understood. I have made my position clear, this should not be about politics which is what it is about now, with GDP nominal playing second fiddle. In any case, compare with List of countries by real_GDP growth rate a much more meaningful measure than GDP nominal and which does not follow the procedure here. So much for the politics/economics relationship. Selfstudier (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay maybe I misunderstood your previous post re the UN. A couple of points: you say this should not be about politics but that is exactly what you and others are making it by not ranking non-UN countries. The sources do not exclude these countries/territories nor do they distinguish them in any way. Somewhere in the creation or editing of this article an editor/s have chosen to exclude these countries from the rankings. I know that the source doesn't explicitly rank countries in general but they do implicitly. Can't see how the GDP nominal becomes 'second fiddle' because of following the sources. Secondly your comparison to the List of countries by real_GDP growth rate is in error as far as I can see. This article uses IMF and World Bank sources that list two non-UN territories in the IMF table - Hong Kong and Macau and three in the World Bank table - Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan - and they ARE ranked in the IMF table and not distinguished in any way from other entries in both tables. This is what I am arguing for (or a variation of) for this list as per my post above. Additionally whether the GDP growth rate article shows information that is more economically meaningful is irrelevant to this discussion. Robynthehode (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You brought up the economics/politics thing, I was simply responding. Point remains this article has made up (ie wikieditors made it up) criteria. I could just take them all out as unsourced OR and insist on WP:ONUS.Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by your first sentence. What were you responding to and what in my subsequent response is a point of disagreement. Maybe both of us can just leave it there. Yes thanks for agreeing that the article is made up and could be seen as WP:OR but if we agree such list articles are valid for Wikipedia (and there are quite a few based on primary sources) then they should be based on the source in totality rather than cherry picking entries in the sources list to modify - unless a good reason for the cherry picking is made (and I don't believe it has). So the onus could be easily seen to be on you to make the argument for the inclusion of information that is not part of the source. Having read WP:ONUS it could be interpreted either way. Maybe we should RfC or let another editor/s engage at this point. Robynthehode (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Up to crazydude, I am not going to bother with it, there are a few of these half-baked list articles around. I support his objective in principle, leaving the details to one side for the moment.Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank all of you guys for your opinions in this discussion. I do actually agree with a lot of points from @AuH2ORepublican on this topic. My intention was to rank the countries of Hong Kong, Macau, Kosovo, Palestine and Taiwan, since these countries play a significant role on the market or form some sort of a national economy system without beeing dependent on any other country in first place. Thats why I belive that looking only from an economical standpoint there is no difference compared to generally recognized countries. Having a disputed status or not beeing a commonly recognized state is not important in the first place since no country refuses the trade or other economic relations with generally unrecognized countries. So from an economic standpoint there is no such thing as a general unrecognized country. The problem with drawing a line to point where we rank only generally recognized countries, doesn't seem to appear as clear as somebody is going to think at first, since there is no clear definition for when a country is generally recognized. If we exclude every country on this planet that has some kind of dispute than we have to unrank a lot of countries that are already ranked like Israel for an example. I would withdraw my suggestions if the quality of this article gets affected.

My suggestion: Changing of the criterias to where countries who form a clear form of a national economic system and compete with other economies on the daily market are included.

So: The inclusion of Taiwan, Macau, Hong Kong, State of Palestine and Kosovo in the ranking system with a reference on the dispute thats taking place.

Crazydude1912 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * . All countries / territories currently unranked would have to be ranked to be consistent. This would follow the implicit ranking in the sources and not be subject to a charge of cherry picking. After all this list article is a reference for people who want to find out information. They are not (for the most part) interested in the political status of a country / territory. We should wait and see other comments and then see what the consensus is. Robynthehode (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robynthehode I agree with you on that point. There are ranks in other languages where my suggestions work perfectly fine. Ranks where all countries/territories who have reliable sources, reporting about the GDP of the countries/territories are ranked. Where only not sovereign entities ([EU] for example) are unranked. Crazydude1912 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Even if we stipulate that the EU would not be number ranked (which we all know will be insisted upon by editors who have been making that exact same argument in other articles), number ranking every single entry, whether a state with limited recognition (e.g., Kosovo), a dependent territory (e.g., Puerto Rico) or an autonomous region within a country that frankly I can't understand why it would be presented separately in the first place (I'm looking at you, Zanzibar), a generally recognized sovereign state's ranking will become pretty much meaningless.


 * For example, look at Tuvalu, the listed country with the lowest GDP. Among generally recognized sovereign states, it is ranked 186 by the IMF and 192 by the UN.  If we number ranked states with limited recognition, dependent territories and other areas included in the article (excluding the EU, as stipulated), Tuvalu's ranking would drop to 192 on the IMF list and all the way down to 212 (!) on the UN list.  And if the UN decided to follow its Zanzibar precedent and separately list the constituent countries of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), the autonomous regions of Spain (Catalonia, Canary Islands, etc.), autonomous regions in Russia, and so on, Tuvalu would drop several dozen additional spots in one year; conversely, if the UN restricted its criteria for listing economies, Tuvalu would miraculously go up 20 spots even in the absence of economic growth.


 * Mark Twain famously said (and I paraphrase) "There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics." A country's rank on the list should not depend on whether the source decides to list separately Transnistria or the District of Columbia.  Eliminating the number rank, or doing the functional equivalent by giving every economy a number rank, would make the article poorer.  Perhaps a second rank number can be added that lists all economies, but the rank numbering of generally recognized sovereign states should not be eliminated.  If one wants to know where Kosovo ranks among world economies, it would be useful to be able to learn that if it were a generally recognized state it would rank 144th on the list, something that one would not be able to glean from the article (at least not easily) if such rank numbering were eliminated.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have checked all the sources and they don't specifically rank entries (unless I'm looking in the wrong place. If so please add links here to your source for the IMF and UN). As I have said before we need to follow the sources and if the sources include non-nation state countries and territories we should include them and rank them unless there is a very good reason not to do so. The sources do not distinguish between UN states and non UN ones. I think you're overstating it when you say 'a generally recognized sovereign state's ranking will become pretty much meaningless' as any number ranking will only alter by a few places. My preference is for inclusion and ranking everything. A nations state, country or territory's rank is perfectly acceptable if the data says its economic performance warrants its position in the table and therefore it should be ranked. As I've said above not ranking non UN entries is making a political choice about the data and as this is an article about economics it is best to follow the sources which do not make that distinction. Robynthehode (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"A nations state, country or territory's rank is perfectly acceptable if the data says its economic performance warrants its position in the table and therefore it should be ranked" thats what i am talking about. And just as a side note, english wikipedia seems to be the only internet webside that does such kind of differentiations in relation on recognitions, disputes and dependencies. Crazydude1912 (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's right, if you go back years when they had a centralized discussion about all this, numbering/ranking was considered a side issue. I agree with that. Just follow the sources, the only way to get a list of "generally recognized sovereign states" (an expression without any meaning) is to use the UN member states as a sole source and limit it to member states only, giving them all a number. Or you could use List of sovereign states. Etc. But then that's a different list altogether.Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020
GDP for European Union probably false since brexit. Bidpourwiki (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  17:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Update Request
someone please update the list to the IMF 2020 Estimates please? Thank you. Kimo4300 (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)