Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)/Further Negative impact discussion here

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

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


 * As brief as this comment is, as precisely does it hit the point, IMHO. T om ea s y talk 19:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, definitely. There are some people who do not want the discussions because they can effectively expose inconsistencies in ones own arguments. Those are the ones who think it is Negative. I do not agree. Discussions are actually very very positive, it just depends on who you have to deal with and so far people I'm dealing with do not wish to understand the situation and try to push some EU agenda in here, does not matter how ugly that might sound .--Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree discussion are useful. However, discussion requires respect for each others point of view from the start; and the willingness to reconsider your opnion. Above remark does neither show respect for people in favour of keeping EU in, nor any kind of willingness to even consider their arguments from your side. If you can honestly state you are willing to consider both, we can discuss, otherwise discussion will be a waste of time. Arnoutf (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How can anyone consider other sides when they dont even make sense. One second they will say the EU is Unique, the other second when you ask them to place it in its own "unique" place and chart, they refuse to agree. Does that make sense? If you are waiting for others to appease you by considering this nonsense then you are the one whos wasting time.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes.... it is obvious that placing a unique entity in a comparative list of its own is nonsensical; so I guess nobody considered your suggestion seriously. Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What else are you going to do if it is UNIQUE. What are you going to compare it to if it is UNIQUE ?The way you argue contradicts the again all accepted belief that the EU is sui generis. but I bet you want to compare it to the United States that is the whole purpose of this entire discussion. Some fanatics are pushing their POV EU agenda here, deteriorate the whole discussion and then call it Negative and call it waste of time.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed my (hastily and perhaps ill informed) comment above BEFORE there was any response, because I thought this would not be productive and would elicit some response like above; I am not happy that I was not allowed to remove my own comment before there was any follow up, but so be it. Read your own stuff "I bet you want to compare it to the US" and "fanatics are pushing their POV EU agenda here, deteriorate the whole discussion" seems to me to be accusation of bad faith (or at least a conspiracy theory). There is no way to argue against this. Have fun trying to kill any reason on this talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Reason has died on this page when the EU was first included there. I am saying is EU SUI GENERIS, people answer YES. Then I am saying why wont we remove it from the list of entities that are not "of its kind",The answer= silence.......That is exactly what I call to "kill a reason".--Geographyfanatic (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI Arnoutf (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would love if you could interpret the meaning of your latest action.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Click the link and you will see when EU was added here. Arnoutf (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I managed to do all that. I just could not understand the significance although I had some guesses. Thank you for clarifying.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Say GEO, did the term Sui generis trigger some magic button. Since you have learned that expression you seem to be quite out of balance. Believe me, I -- and as I have gotten to know Arountf, he as well -- are trying to discuss this thing fairly and are far away from pushing agendas. Any such accusation is destructive for everyone. We could easily turn that statement around, but we don't, because it simply is not an argument. It is personal attack in stead and should strictly be avoided.  T om ea s y talk 20:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The existence of term sui generis is well know to most people and it was know to me as well, tomeasy my dear "enlightener". The thing is that everyone was arguing about the country-like status of the EU and you by mentioning sui generis set a precedent. and after you said that, my confusion became even more intense. That is the only reason I kept repeating the term and the fact that unique is exactly what the EU is. Before I even doubted that you though it was different. Now as we know that you think it is different and unique, why wont we place it in its own Unique chart and unique place?That is a question that I never received answer on. and also it will be wonderful if you will drop that arrogance...--Geographyfanatic (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And yes, of course you "have gotten to know" Arountf, no doubt that you are raiding these discussions in groups.United in diversity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geographyfanatic (talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to unleash your anger. So, stop insulting me. It causes only ill-feelings and does not help our case. T om ea s y talk 21:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Insulting you? I never insulted you. I just expressed how I disliked the arrogance you just communicated though your previous comment. it is completely unacceptable. And I am still waiting for the answer, if EU is Unique, why should not we place it in separate Unique chart and unique location ?--Geographyfanatic (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The negative impact is that we are allowing the meaning of words and language to be left to individual interpretation. We are lowering the bar on standards and feeding the premise by some that Wikipedia is an information source that cannot be trusted. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 12:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)