Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-12 List of countries by GDP (nominal)

Who are the involved parties?
Several based on talk page comments.

What's going on?
The article is about GDP listed by country. I (and others) contend that the EU is not a country and should not be listed in this particular article. The opposing view claims that the sources list the EU, however the IMF for example lists the EU as a country group, not a country. It is not listed in the List of countrieswikilink at the top of the article intro. The constituent countries of the EU are also listed. It appears that the listing of the EU is politically motivated, as the data from the IMF can be obtained in various formats chosen by the user. The accuracy of the financial data is not disputed, the dispute is that the definition of country is being bent to include the EU.

What would you like to change about that?
The EU listing should be removed from the article entirely.

Administrative notes
Starting case. Getting in touch with The Founders Intent.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion taking place at Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29. All parties including IPs who have been involved in discussing the matter since 2004 have been invited apart from accounts blocked for disruption.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Case closed. Discussion and conclusion archived on the article's talkpage: Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29/Archive_5  SilkTork  *YES! 19:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * As an outsider to this, the EU is definitley not a country. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with GoodDay that the EU is not a country. More importantly, the size and composition of the EU changes over time as it adds member countries, which will skew the year-to-year comparison in the article's tables and make the data less informative. I suggest that the EU be removed from this list. I would support a similar list entitled something like "List of Trading Groups by GDP" that would include the EU, NAFTA, Pacific Rim and other well-defined economic groups of countries. Truthanado (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The EU is not a trading group it goes far beyond that. The major difference is that a country cannot setup a trade agreement with an individual country. josh (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see the problem Truthanado has with the fact that the EU is expanding. Countries also (have and will) change their extension. T om ea s y talk 13:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Response. The EU is designed to grow and include more countries. Looking to the future, suppose it is now 2009 and we compare the EU's GDP to what it was in 2007. It will incorrectly look like it has been a huge increase because several countries' GDP are now included that weren't included before when, in fact, the net effect should actually be lower because of the economic downturn in 2008. Countries do not regularly annex territory; that would be like the US annexing Canada, which isn't going to happen. Since this is a list of countries, let's keep it that way. If we want to provide data about the EU, let's use a different page (ex: "List of Trading Groups by GDP") that includes all of the world's trading groups. There seems to already be some support for that (see below). Truthanado (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You should be interested in this. T om ea s y talk 20:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also endorse the creation of List of Trading Groups by GDP, sounds really interesting. T om ea s y talk 13:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with GoodDay. Still I want the EU (unranked) in the list for comparison purpose. After all, it functions as a single in almost every aspect. T om ea s y talk 13:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is crazy to ask for the EU to be added as a country, what the majority is asking is to keep in the top, unranked for purely comparison reasons, same as the world. Personally, once of the main reasons why this is a very interesting fact is because of the power of their common currency the euro. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that is not what has been asked. First it was because these highly acclaimed organizations listed it, then when we showed it was all nonsense, it became for comparison sake.  The listing is politically driven pure and simple.  You people keep moving the bar and changing the rules.  Those who want it listed want the EU perceived as something it's not and/or can't stand the idea that the US is the #1 country is the world.  They want generations of people to view the EU as a country just like the US.  Well it's not; where is its constitution?  Why is Germany, France, the UK and others listed?  I have asked this before and no one has answered. Saying it's crazy to call it a country, but then insisting it be listed anyway.  Then list California, it'll be #10. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest to try to be realistic. Talking about GDP and not talking about the European Union is seriously non-sense, from an economic point of view. Why is it so difficult to believe that from this view, just mentioning the union (mainly because of the use of the euro) it makes a lot of sense?  It does not matter that it is not a country, it does not matter that a few countries are not using the euro ... I think we are talking about comparison, in an important economic indicator like GDP.  I suggest searching for professional literature about the topic, and seeing that not mentioning the European Union is barely seen.  At the same time it is very relevant to the topic, nobody is asking to put the GDP of Bill Gates or some non-sense like that. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not too familiar with the MC cases, I think an administrator will need to put a poll and that will be all. Constantly attaching each other we ain't gonna go nowhere. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No sir Miguel, you are wrong. You want to create an article on GDP of organizations such as the EU, then fine do so.  But the EU is not a country, and does not belong.  It's very simple, either you want Wikipedia to be an accurate encyclopedia or you don't.  You want to teach children that the EU is a country, please confine it to your own home.  Bending the standard of an encyclopedia to suit your agenda is intellectually dishonest and wrong. I suggest you do the research, because I know what a country is and so do other reasonable people. Take politics out of Wikipedia, it's doesn't belong here.  BTW, California would be #8, Texas #13 and New York #14. Why mention Bill Gates if no one is asking?  You're are trying to cloud the issue.  Please stay on point. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 12:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please TFI, try to communicate your points more softly. I am quite irritated about the repeated accusation to push an EU agenda here. I do not care where you are from and will not insinuate that anyone here is led by nationalist emotions. Those are not arguments and they do not bring us any further. Just in contrast, you only make people feel insulted, at least in my case you have succeeded. Believe it or not, I would want the EU included even if I was born in Alaska. T om ea s y talk 14:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again to TFI: When trying to look for analogies to demonstrate the inclusion of the EU ad absurdum, US states do not work. Germany etc. are countries like the US and the EU is super-national like NAFTA. So, if you want to make your case again from there, I will respond to your analogies. T om ea s y talk 14:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * TFI wrote: "California would be #8, Texas #13 and New York #14". Did you realize that the EU is not #1? You are making cases that do not exist. Stick to the status quo that is under discussion. T om ea s y talk 14:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * TFI again: You are repeatedly making the point that the EU is not a country. Please take it, it is your point. You have won that one--from the beginning. Nobody has ever claimed otherwise in this discussion. Nobody is trying to "make generations think so". Those are just accusations directed towards your opponents but not in accordance to what they say. Please, concentrate on arguments rather than accusations. T om ea s y talk 14:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that I had to use so much space just for replying. Now, I will give an unmentioned argument for the inclusion of the EU: Our sources state them as well, see here. It is not our task to censor our sources. That would be POV. Rather, I find it quite obvious that there is interest in these figures and we should expect a good fraction of our readers to visit the list with the same interest. I am quite sure that almost everyone will recognize the data about the EU and (if they had not known before) will have learned a good piece of information, namely that the US GDP is of similar size to the combined EU GDP. On the other side I am quite sure that nobody will consult this list to learn which are the countries on this planet are which aren't. T om ea s y talk 14:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I have support my claim by stating that the EU is not a country, and does not qualify for inclusion on a list of countries. I have shown that the claim of listing on the IMF website as a country is false.  If you can find an article about a list of economic treaties or country groups, fine list the EU and the US will not be there.  If you want to discuss the EU, write a section in the article about it, but take if off the list.  For that matter the World GDP is also irrelevant, but it is a total.  If someone wants to disregard a plain definition, it must be political....tell me what else it is. I have address their comments, and they change them continually. If you want open comparisons, write an article on comparisons of GDPs. You are insulted?  I'm insulted by the intellectually dishonesty and that fact that the EU is wrongly listed.  Not one quality argument has been made to keep it listed, and after all the comments so far, I don't expect to see one. I initiated the informal mediation after josh told me my arguments change nothing.  He stood there inflexible to any arguments, and so did you. Yet he never once made a compelling statement on definition, on the way the data was compiled or presented. Numerous others have made the same argument as I have, to deaf ears. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 14:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to see you have reacted to my first point and stopped accusing me (or the people arguing with me) of pushing an EU agenda. Thank you for that. Now, it would be nice to see a reaction to any (if you wish all) of the four remaining points I addressed. And no, I am not intellectually (or in which ever sense) dishonest. Please continue this thread without such statements. T om ea s y talk 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already made the case, and you have not addressed it. If you want to change the title to suit your argument, please propose it.  Until then, the EU is not a country, and to list it is a misrepresentation of the list and what a country is. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

--Geographyfanatic (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC) - A person who supports the idea of powerful, more active EU.
 * The European Union should be removed from the country list and maybe we should make a separate table listing the EU total GDP and prehaps other continents or economic organizations' gdps just for comparison. We all know that EU is not a country and right now as I understand the problem is not that we  all think it is a country. the problem is that I personally believe that the World total gdp has to be the only exception. And even more, as I said multiple times on the talk page, the EU still can not make its economic/political policy without member states by more centralized decision. Two attempts to give it more of such centralized powers - the constitution and the Lisbon Treaty that followed- have been rejected by the people. Very often large countries inside the EU do not pay attention to smaller countries' concerns but they always get their way through(example:Germany and France). I believe in 50 years EU will be very centrilized, alomost a federation and it is essential that it balances the United States influence at some point to create a healthy political/economic environment. On the other hand, I believe the EU has not shown,yet, the unity and centralized decision making system that would make us consider it for this list.It should be removed. And please lets try not to make this a matter of being American/European. The reality is infront of us and the reality is what I just said in this long paragraph.Not enough unity to be even considered for somehting even close to this list. Create a separate one


 * Thank you GEO for putting the other sides arguments more clearly and less emotional. I agree long paths with what you say, just that I draw a different conclusion. What you wrote describes the very nature of the EU as a sui generis. In deed, it is not a country (and will never be), but its level of integration is far beyond any comparable group -- and this, foremost with respect to economic politics. Here, the EU acts in many respects like a country (a common currency, common directives regulating competition, labor market, etc.), while inarguably national sovereignty still exists (as is exemplified by the pipeline deal, and many more). How are directives of the EU enacted? Well, similar as would be done in a confederation. It's a mixture of common institutions like the parliament and the commission and national representations like the council. There are fields where council decisions need to be unanimous and others where a majority rules. Why do say all this? To show that with respect to a economic policy the EU acts more country-like than any other grouping and, of course, less country-like than a country. When it comes to a global scale the EU takes a position that no other grouping takes for its members, see WTO or G8. It is not disputed (outside wikipedia:-) that the EU is a special case (sui generis), and cannot be ignored as a party at least in the field of economics. Consequently, our sources show it and so should we. T om ea s y talk 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see what the Irish referendum has to do with it. If it had been 55-45 and not 45-55, would you (GEO) have argued the other way around? If the Lisbon treaty does not come into effect, will the integration be any less than it is today? No. T om ea s y talk 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not Just about the Irish referendum, the constitution was rejected by the French and the Dutch before that. I believe that other countries did not reject it simply because they ratified it though the parliament.You see, french and dutch did not dare to have a referendum this year, no doubt about why. Honestly no one was going to read those huge booklets that they were giving anyway. The EU is not as united as it might seem. Although I agree with you that it is a sui generis organization and there is no other like it, I have to tell you that it does not act "country-like". They do take position for their memebers like no other organization does, but those are about very general policies and I believe they are in advance reached by the consensus. For example If the EU will decide that they will approve the US stance on lets say Iraq war and dont ask France and Germany in advance (two biggest "friends" of the united state) it will be something unperceivable. Lets face the reality, it makes decision by consensus but its not a federal system, the US federal government does not ask the States when implementing things guaranteed by the rights given to them only. You said confederation though, well what are you offering do you want to put the EU there as an independent entity? well I guess you will have to remove  all those 27 member states and that really proves what your intentions are. Face the reality, its place is not there,period. We need a separate chart -  even if it will list the EU only by itself. it is SUI GENERIS? well if there is no other like it why wont we put it in a chart all ALONE -  That makes sense.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has been opened at Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29, and that discussion is what I will be looking at. The issue of the UE not being a country has been gone over since 2004 and has not made progress. At this stage we need to be looking at the deeper issues, and at potential solutions.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)