Talk:List of sovereign states in Europe by GDP (nominal)/Archive 1

Turkey and Europe
Let us settle this 'Turkey in Europe' issue for Wikipedia at large. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Europe list Turkey alongside Armenia Georgia and Azerbaijan. It seems soneone removed it from here.

So, it seems someone removed Turkey from this list based on the comment below. Azarbaijan, Armenia and Georgia all to her east remain though. If this is goping to be a matter of many edits and controversy it is not worth reinserting Turkey into this list, but then we have a consistency problem because Turkey is listed on other lists concerning Europe.

Why is there Turkey on the "List of European countries by GDP", we speak here about Europe, not the EU, Turkey can get part of EU, but never part of europe... --- Why there is no Moldova on this list? it is situated between Romania and Ukraine - thus it is a part of Europe... For methodologies of calculation see below.

Why is Turkey in the list? Something like 3% of Turkey's landmass is in actually Europe. --- State % of total Population in Europe Russia    73.75 Georgia   54.63 Azerbaijan 50.42 Turkey    16.03 Kazakhstan 8.71 Armenia       0 Cyprus        0

-

Turkey is a part of Europe in every way, they will soon become a member of the European union an is such recarded as a european country by the union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.118.234 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Turkey is not in Europe, the Anatolian peninsula is not a part of Europe.... It is like Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan; a part of it is in Europe but it is not in Europe completely. Additionally, Turkey will be a member of EU after Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan become members of EU, which is probably never
 * It doesn't matter either way, the countries on the image are simply there because it might be useful to see their GDP with respect to Europe 99.236.220.155 (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone with common sense, right now it seems alright, however if the article is attacked again to remove Turkey, let's just revert it - no need to discuss such an obvious fact. Let's not fall into the trap of those fanatic trolls. If they start a revert war, those users should be banned because they want to misuse Wikipedia for their nationalist/religious/racist propaganda which we true Wikipedians should not let happen. --Bergamut (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Turkey should be added to the list. In some articles, Turkey is listed as with the Europe, however in some articles, not, so it should be consistent. It is not of whether Turkey is in Europe or not question. Please kindly take action Nitrium (talk) 23:28, 11.07.2015 (UTC+3)

--

Turkey should be on the list. This is crazy, we're not even talking about EU here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.201.132 (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

--

So Turkey is not in EU, but officially a candidate country. But Russia is in EU? Also Kazakhistan? LOL!!! Are you armenian or greek? No need to say, you can't be someone else to make this judgement.
 * Doesn't matter where they are from, whether they do it because they are fanatic Christians or extreme right-wing/racist propaganda rats. What is for sure is whoever removes Turkey from the list here, is definitely a simple Troll. --Bergamut (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Let's start by making a distinction: Europe as a continent or geographical area and being part of the European Union are two completely different things. Norway, Switzerland or Island are part of Europe but they are not part of the European Union. Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan (not Azerbaidjan), and Cyprus are not part of Europe. In fact Turkey alone is 3% in Europe and 97% in Asia. The other countries that follow in the list is 0% in Europe. It really doesn't matter how desperate the French-speaking elite in the European Union is to drag Turkey into anything that relates to Europe (considering a bunch of other things like the Armenian genocide, the Cyprus invasion and the country's standing on human rights that the European Union completely disregards - a discussion of its own - let's not even get into religious views or cultural values of Europe). Listing Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus in Europe or GDP of Europe is a complete distortion of reality. It's like saying that Pakistan, El Salvador or Botswana are in Europe. Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus must be removed from this article because they are not part of Europe.

I'm from Europe. Turkey is not in Europe. Neither is Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia or Armenia. The majority of Russia is not in Europe either. I think Americans have a poor geographical understanding. Apart from Stalingrad, the rest of Russia isn't in Europe. Turkey is more Middle East/Asia, and Kazakhstan is definitely not in Europe. Wikipedia is full of inaccuracies.

ICE77 (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia page on Europe:  "Europe is a continent located entirely in the Northern Hemisphere and mostly in the Eastern Hemisphere. It comprises the westernmost part of Eurasia and is bordered by the Arctic Ocean to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the west, the Mediterranean Sea to the south, and Asia to the east. Europe is commonly considered to be separated from Asia by the watershed of the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, the Caspian Sea, the Greater Caucasus, the Black Sea, and the waterways of the Turkish Straits.[ref] Although some of this border is over land, Europe is generally accorded the status of a full continent because of its great physical size and the weight of history and tradition." BobBadg (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Additional columns
It would be good to add some additional coumns: Alinor 20:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * GDP purchasing power parity (PPP)
 * GDP per capita in USD
 * GDP per capita in USD-PPP

Russia wrong
This list is wrong. Russia's GDP is PPP and other countries GDP are not the same as on either IMF or World Bank lists. 82.210.188.90 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2006‎‎ (UTC)

Further Points

 * I have removed the verification box, since the sources are now cited and verifiable.


 * All countries nominally and conventionally considered European (including Turkey, Cyprus, Georgia, Russia etc) SHOULD be included in the list. Debates regarding whether a nation is or is not European are not appropriate to this particular article. Consequently, it should be as inclusive as possible to reflect the views of all.


 * I have added Albania, which was strangely not included in the table.

Simmyymmis 00:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Bosnia?
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 Bosnia is with 9,425, on this page it is with a much higher value. Please. 85.130.6.178 (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2006‎ (UTC)

Delete or rename article?
This article no longer contains significant encyclopaediac content relevant to its title, since the majority of it contains highly speculative (and therefore completely meaningless - unless the IMF owns a time-portal!) future GDP estimates, with all factual historical data purged. Even 2007 is partly estimated. I'm sure the contributor who dumped all the IMF data in thought they were being helpful, but this article is now little more than fantasy. I think it should either be moved to a new title or deleted.

Simmyymmis (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is how it looked before it was updated. This article now contains the most up to date 2007 figures available anywhere, plus new estimates. I don't see the problem. If you wish to add back figures from 2005-2006, go ahead. There is no reason to delete or rename the article, since it does in fact show all European countries by GDP. Sbw01f (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article predominantly shows non-factual guess-timates of future European GDP. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear on future-prediction. We cannot possibly make meaningful estimates of GDP up to 5 years in advance, which makes most of the IMF data meaningless, and certainly not relevant to an article about the present. I suggest that in order to make this more relevant, the future guess work (at least from 2010) should be removed, and the latest year in which figures are not based on any estimates at all be restored. It may also benefit from a wider range of sources. It would be nice to hear what others think on this. Simmyymmis (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I much prefer the old one, as it looks somewhat more professional and doesn't involve future-predicting, but that's just me --81.109.192.190 (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the sovereign states title means there are no contested territories in Europe? Why not list of countries by GDP (nominal)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.186 (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2018‎ (UTC)

Ranking according to which column?
The ranking should be by the last actual data surely, not the latest forecast - so as of the date of writing by 2017 not 2018? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.31.150 (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that the initial ranking (i.e., before the reader presses on of these buttons) is currently a mess. Is it neither sorted according to 2007 column nor the 2008 or 2009 column.

I propose to use the most recent (i.e., most reliable) column as a reference, and will implement this soon. Any objections? T om ea s y T C 19:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2008 seems the most logical choice to me. Sbw01f (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask why? T om ea s y T C 11:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's the most recent year. Sbw01f (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, I do not understand. We are in 2009 now. So, 2009 would be the column most closely connected to now - most recent, one could say. However, 2009 data is just an estimate, because 2009 is not accomplished yet. So, it is somehow uncertain. But so is 2008 - just an estimate.
 * I see solid arguments to rank for the column 2007 as well as ranking for the column 2009, but to rank for 2008 seems questionable. T om ea s y T C 08:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2008 data is an estimate made in October, so they had a solid data for the first three quarters of and just had to guesstimate the last quarter. 2009 would be a complete ballpark. I don't strongly oppose using 2007 data though, was just giving my opinion. Sbw01f (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which makes it still an estimate, and gone is the argument that it is the most recent factual data. There is another point to mention: It is highly uncommon to sort a table for one of the central columns - certainly, no reader would expect this.
 * For me either of the outer two columns would be fine as a reference. Would you like to pick one? T om ea s y T C 17:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I updated 2008 with hard data (and new 2009 estimates). So ranking with 2008 (with app ranking column caption) seemed logic to me, because any past data can be added. But i was reverted with a reference to this discussion (?). --78.108.106.253 (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When were you reverted? My edit from 5 November is the last one and that was not a revert. Also, before my edit the table was not ranked according to any of its columns.
 * So, 2008 data are hard figures now. That is, of course, an important information that has not been considered in this talk page section so far. Can you show the diff (the edit) where this update was done?
 * Ranking the table for 2008 data has the problem that this is the middle column of the three that carry the relevant data. this is highly unexpected by the reader, and the ranking will likely be regarded as inconsistent. The middle column would probably be the last one the reader checks, when checking for consistent ranking.
 * I see two possibilities, if 2008 data are now confirmed. We can delete the column for 2007 (which I prefer in this case), or we base the ranking on 2009 data. T om ea s y T C 06:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Currency
Why is this in USD rather than euros; or at least, why isn't it in euros as well? I came to this list not to compare between the world, but to compare inter-Europe. Njál (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The source (IMF) publishes the data in US$ or national currency. Hence, US$ is the only possible choice we can make.
 * Such a childish answer. Use Eurostat data instead! João Pimentel Ferreira (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can do your comparison just as well with US$. When comparing the GDP of countries, you are interested in the ration of the respective values. These are independent from the currencies used. T om ea s y T C 19:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But it might also be possible to have two columns: one in dollars with UN sources, and one in Euro with EU source. Why not? In most cases, US dollars vales have been converted from Euro. are they comparable year after year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.186 (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Scripts for updating data
shell script available for updating the map, and ruby script available for updating the table here:

https://github.com/HLLNSTN/wikipedia-european-stats-map

all that's needed is a copy and paste from the world bank website to a plain text editor, and a few tweaks to the colour coding ranges in the map script

Tetriminos (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Country count
40 “sovereign states” (countries) listed; doesn’t include Andorra, Kosovo, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Vatican (-> 45).

NB: Cyprus, Turkey are not included here or at List of Asian countries by GDP.

MBG02 (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Cyprus is missing
Hello there, according to the official site of EU Cyprus is part of it.

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries/cyprus_en

EU member country: since 1 May 2004 Currency: euro. Euro area member since 1 January 2008 Schengen: Cyprus is currently in the process of joining the Schengen area.

It seems to have been forgotten. :-| 2.34.46.147 (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2019‎ (UTC)


 * The Schengen bit is irrelevant.49.178.99.219 (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)