Jump to content

Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

EU

User Ezorb thinks: the EU is not a country, Title of this page is countries not economic unions, No other trade blocks are included this chart, Include all trade blocks or none such as Nafta. This chart is also inconsistent with other charts on this page but his edit was reverted (by User:Antiochus the Great). He has made similar edits on List of countries by GDP (nominal), List of countries by GDP sector composition and I will ping those talk pages as well. Does anyone feel like discussing this matter here? --John (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking in archives at Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal) it appears the EU debate has be done to death already. I think it all comes down to Wikipedia:Cherrypicking - if the EU is included in IMF sources, then it should be here too. Furthermore, the EU is clearly left unranked and clearly identified as distinctly different, so I don't feel there is any danger that a reader may mistake the EU for a country. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The large volume of debate about this demonstrates that this is NPOV problem. There are any number clever of ways to fix this and none of them are implemented here. Easy answer, just take it out, instant NPOV. So easy I can do it. Adding all the worlds trade organisations would make this a huge sloppy mess. I don't see how people can be ok with just adding "my one favourite trade block", ranked or not, Because the IMF includes this makes no difference here, they have an entirely different purpose. Like you say the EU cant be mistaken for a country. 184.66.40.172 (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

(Alerted from the WP:Countries talkpage) Debate doesn't imply an NPOV problem, it implies a topic with widely diverse views. On the other hand, anyone asking for NPOV while treating the EU as a trade bloc on the same level as NAFTA etc. is only weakening their argument. I'm unsure about areas outside economics, but within the area of economics the EU is very often discussed as a market along with countries, such as in the IMF lists. CMD (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The difference between the EU and other trade blocks is the EU is routinely described as a single economy and often described as the world's largest economy - the other trade blocs are not routinely described as being single economies. The EU is sui generis. Canada Jack (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Besides, since when is Hong Kong a country? And why not a peep about their inclusion here? Canada Jack (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Saudi-Arabia

Why is Saudi-Arabia 14th greates economy? 84.131.229.48 (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

IMF

somebody broke the imf section. number 9 doesn't exist and i am pretty sure some number have been jumbled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.71.173 (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Latest GDP fiures are missing

China has becomes the largest economy in the world in terms of PPP GDP. Then why that data is missing? Isn't that a bias? This table needs updating as soon as possible. 123.236.62.14 (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Top 3 edited, use the new IMF figures and update the rest of the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocololi (talk • contribs) 03:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

The talk page seems to be getting rather cluttered and some comments are in the wrong place. If there are no objections I will set up auto-archiving for threads with no additions for three months. --Boson (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content

As the the EU is not mentioned in the citations for either the "List by the International Monetary Fund (2013)" or the "List by the World Bank (2005–2013)" I have removed it from them both. To slip them into such contexts without a source mirroring those contexts is pure original research, so unwelcome in the article. 85.255.234.36 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added the necessary note/references and restored the content that was removed. World Bank figures per WP:CALC. --Boson (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
If we are going to accept the unsourced addition of the EU to the lists then, for the sake of neutrality and under the same WP:CALC OR exception, we need also to add other significant regional trade blocks such as NAFTA, ASEAN and Mercosur. And who knows what other smaller blocks. Are we ready for that? 85.255.234.37 (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The addition is not unsourced. See the references. We could decide to add other organizations if we have similarly sourced data. On the other hand, we may also use our editorial judgement and come to the same conclusion as the CIA:

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 ...

What we decide is a matter of consensus, as usual, but I would like to see a reliable source that successfully counters the CIA argument.--Boson (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Boson, that seems a convincing enough rationale to me. It wasn't made clear in the article though, and still isn't. The EU numbers need their own cites in the first 2 columns and, perhaps, the reason for including them explained in that detail too and supported with the CIA cite. Thanks for your patience in explaining it for me though. 85.255.233.47 (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I have added some more notes. See this diff. I think that should make it clearer. --Boson (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@85.255.234.37. The IMF list is based on the World Economic Outlook Database for October 2014. In that database there are also GDP figures for the European Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States and ASEAN-5 (by selecting "Country Groups"). (you can check the database here for yourself). Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

VANDALISM

There has been vandalism in the 2014 data about PPP because Brazil´s GDP increased just 0.2% in 2014 while Russia´s increase 0.6%, so the difference between both GDP actually increased, not decreased. In fact, according to the IMF page, the PPP GDP of Russia is $ 3,458 bn. while Brazil´s PPP GDP is $ 3,259 bn., so $ 200 bn. less. CORRECT THAT ERROR. --88.16.158.139 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Outdated row

I have removed the row "Data from the World Bank (2005–2013)" because all of it is outdated. The World Bank has apparently given up on updating it, and even the most recent data is from two years ago. To give it equal weight as actual recent sources is undue. At most it could be included in a historical section, but not in the middle of these other two. 77.165.250.227 (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the World Bank table is unnecessary. It's outdated, and as the World Bank is a closely related organization to the IMF, its data are quite similar to IMF's anyway. -Zanhe (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The issue here is that no specific policy calls for the removal of the table. In fact, good practice would simply urge us to be patient and wait until World Bank updates their figures. Zanhe, World Bank and the IMF are separate organisations, their figures are independent of one another.Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

World Bank numbers are off

World Bank numbers do not match the source. Argentina, for example, does not have a value for 2014 in the source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that there are tons of errors. Although I have this article watchlisted, I see lots of small edits without explanation and I rarely have time to go and verify each one of them. Given that this article is largely a mechanical collection of published lists with little scope for editorial discretion, I'm thinking a good strategy would be for an editor to verify the article once, and then have the page protected. And I'm not usually a fan of page protection, but there's not a whole lot of improvement that can be done to lists like this once the numbers are verified. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to get around to verifying this list. I agree with page protection. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

CIA world factbook should not be treated as a neutral source.

CIA world factbook should not be treated as a neutral source. Recommending it's removal. Views on it? standardengineer (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of the European Union in a list of countries?

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? Thanks. Filpro (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Charts should use data for latest complete year with actual data, not a green shaded IMF estimate, and certainly not for the current or a future year.

The IMF column should be using 2015, not 2016. The most recent year with actual data is more noteworthy than a shakier, cherry-picked future estimate. The IMF estimates stretch out well into the 2020s. The chart might as well use one of those years if it's going to feature an estimate instead of the more reliable 2015 number. VictorD7 (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetic sorting of numbers

Four columns of numbers are sorted alphabetically, rather than by the value of the number, eg, 1, 10, 101, 1045, 121, 2, 20, etc.

The affected columns are: all three "rank" columns of the lists, and the World Bank GDP list. I don't have the coding knowledge to fix this, but I'm hoping that a more knowledgeable passerby will do a good deed here.

2605:A601:539:F800:946B:FDD1:9FC6:3766 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancies found in the IMF figure listed for Kuwait

I happened to be going over some numbers I plunked down into a spreadsheet recently and in the process, I noticed a discrepancy. The column for the IMF figures uses a header that qualifies the figures with "Millions of Int$." Is this correct? I'll use Kuwait as an example to show you why I ask. Kuwait's figure in this column is 288,382. However, if you visit the Wikipedia country page for Kuwait, you will see that $301.289 billion is listed (the CIA World Factbook happens to list $289.9 billion for its latest estimate -- 2015). My first thought was, "Wow! That's quite a big difference!" Even if different sources were used (but they weren't) it would be hard to believe such a large discrepancy would exist. Granted, one set of data may be more recent than another, but it shouldn't show this large of a discrepancy. So my question is this: Is there a valid reason for this discrepancy or is there an error somewhere? By the way, I haven't checked any of the other figures yet, so I don't know if this is just an inadvertent error for Kuwait or found elsewhere as well. Emerald Evergreen 20:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa Beck (talk • contribs)

List by the International Monetary Fund (Estimates for 2017)

This list has been reverted multiple times because of a revert war, please provide some sources to back the claims up or revert it back to it's original version, thank you Redman19 (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi IMF (2017 April Database 2017/01) 18 April 2017

Korea 2,029.706 Saudi Arabia 1,796.205 Canada 1,752.910 Turkey 2,082.079

Link: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=43&pr.y=19&sy=2017&ey=2017&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=PPPGDP&grp=0&a= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunny2090 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Fantaeconomy with 2017 estimates

In 2017 above exchange vrates can change a lot.It should be posted 2016 list.The 2017 estimates list isn't serious at all.Fantaeconomy.Benniejets (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's Estimates from 2017 IMF(18 April 2017 - 2017/01 database) --> List by the International Monetary Fund (Estimates for 2017). So no problem.Bunny2090 (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The first table includes estimation for the year 2017, for all current 187 International Monetary Fund (IMF) members, as well as Hong Kong and Taiwan (the official list uses "Taiwan, Province of China"). Data are in millions of international dollars and were calculated by the IMF. Figures were published in April 2015. The second table includes data mostly for the year 2015 for 180 of the 193 current United Nations member states, as well as the two Chinese Special Administrative Regions (Hong Kong and Macau). Data are in billions of international dollars and were compiled by the World Bank. The third table is a tabulation of the CIA World Factbook Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Purchasing Power Parity) data update of 2016. The data for GDP at purchasing power parity have also been rebased using the new International Comparison Program price surveys and extrapolated to 2007.Bunny2090 (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The matter is that GDPs (nominasl and PPP) are based only on average exchange rates from January to April.This must be specificated in the article.In 2017 they could change a lot with the exchange rates changing.The data about real growth and inflaction are just estimations or even less.That's why should be set semi definitive data of IMF of 2016.Benniejets (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that's all done terribly wrong. We should report the estimates for 2022 provided by the IMF. Why stop with the forcasts for 2017, if we can look forward to 2022? Doesn't make ANY sense.
Well. To be serious let's compare projections from WEO April-2008 with numbers based on actual data from WEO April-2017 on GPD (PPP) for 2008:
Country forcast April 2008 for 2008 data April 2017 for 2008
Algeria 240.402 422.514
Antigua and Barbuda 1.589 2.128
Argentina 571.392 715.230
Azerbaijan 79.181 118.754
Just a start: Have fun comparing [1] with [2]. The simple point is this: 2017 we have a good idea of what happend in 2008. April 2008 nobody knew what would happen in rest of the year. April 2017 we have a reasonably good idea of what happend in 2016, but nobody knows what will happen in the rest of the year 2017. 123 (talk) 02:48, 22 April 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) 07:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


2016 values from 2017[3] database, there isn't big difference. The rank will be same.

Korea 1,934.033
Saudi Arabia 1,750.864
Canada 1,682.364
Turkey 1,988.331
Ukraine 352.978
France 2,733.678
........
......
....
John7575 (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No "Taiwan" on the list of IMF and World bank based on the reference

IMF shows "Taiwan Province of China" instead "Taiwan". If we list "Taiwan", it will be against IMF's data. If we list "Taiwan Province of China", some people are unhappy. The best way is to exclude that from list.

No, the best solution is to decide how we want to present the data, do so, and make note of incongruities somewhere on the page. We could decide to list countries under the form used by the list maker (Cabo Verde, Timor-Leste, and Cote d'Ivoire) or we can list them under their Wikipedia article names (Taiwan). The mixture of the two is silly. I prefer to list them under their article names with a footnate saying that the relevant listing agency uses such-and-such a form.--Khajidha (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

World Bank list

Why is not Argentina in the second table? And the numbers in the table differ from those in the .pdf of the link--Frodar (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

World bank list is completely different from the source

Why is the list different from the source? Some of the countries don't even show up in the report----SeminoleNation (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is there EU on this page.

Why EU has been listed here when it is not even a country. Also countries which are a part of EU are already there. Title of this page says "List of countries by GDP (PPP)" and not any list of associations or economies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalBrawler (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Consider to read second note in the article. --Jklamo (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No note can justify it. EU is not a country, and it shouldn't be included in a list of countries!MetalBrawler (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

New data available "Gross domestic product 2016, PPP" World Bank

Update please new World Bank data, now available 177.67.83.215 (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 1 China 21,417,150 2 United States 18,569,100 3 India 8,702,900 4 Japan 5,266,444 5 Germany 4,028,362 6 Russian Federation 3,397,368 7 Brazil 3,141,333 8 Indonesia 3,032,090 9 United Kingdom 2,796,732 10 France 2,773,932 11 Italy 2,312,559 12 Mexico 2,278,072 13 Turkey 1,927,693 14 Korea, Rep. 1,832,073 15 Saudi Arabia 1,756,793 16 Spain 1,686,373 17 Canada 1,597,517 18 Iran, Islamic Rep. 1,352,814 19 Thailand 1,164,928 20 Australia 1,128,908 21 Nigeria 1,091,228 22 Egypt, Arab Rep. 1,065,179 23 Poland 1,055,354 24 Pakistan 1,014,181 25 Argentina 874,071 26 Netherlands 866,204 27 Malaysia 863,287 28 Philippines 806,539 29 South Africa 739,419 30 Colombia 688,817 31 United Arab Emirates 671,292 32 Iraq 645,594 33 Algeria 612,133 34 Vietnam 595,524 35 Bangladesh 583,480 36 Switzerland 526,450 37 Belgium 526,364 38 Singapore 492,631 39 Sweden 486,985 40 Romania 465,565 41 Kazakhstan 449,621 42 Austria 438,049 43 Hong Kong SAR, China 430,169 44 Chile 429,123 45 Peru 413,759 46 Czech Republic 366,608 47 Ukraine 352,978 48 Ireland 328,785 49 Qatar 327,708 50 Israel 323,947 51 Portugal 316,183 52 Norway 310,321 53 Myanmar 305,301 54 Kuwait 290,529 55 Greece 287,830 56 Denmark 284,813 57 Morocco 280,719 ....

GDP (PPP) 2017

The current GDP ranking of 2017 is completely wrong Ethan leak (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

New IMF Data (October 2017) and others

New IMF Data 15 October 2017, Update all figuers please! Russia 4 trillion now. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=43&pr.y=19&sy=2017&ey=2017&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=PPPGDP&grp=0&a=

CIA rank table wrong! Mexico 2,316,000, Italy 2,235,000, Turkey 1,988,000 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

Thanks. 89.22.175.43 (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Cannot Cite Other Wikipedia Article as Source

Wikipedia itself cannot be cited as a source (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source)

The IMF can be used as a source (as it is on the page you referenced); however:

In order to maintain consistency between articles such as "Economy of the European Union", "Economy of the United States", and "Economy of China", the ranking of economies must match the source of the page you are referencing, which is the International Monetary Fund which does not include economic co-ops/unions in its listings of all economies. If the IMF does change this practice or if the accepted source for national economies is changed then all articles for every national economy must be corrected for those whose position would be altered following the inclusion of economic unions like the Eurasian Economic Union or the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludlite (talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Charts wrong

The two charts at the beginning of the article appear to be wrong. Their caption says "Largest economies by PPP GDP in 2018" and "2019" and refer to IMF estimates. Yet they place Russia as the sixth largest economy when according to IMF estimates Germany's PPP GDP will be larger than Russias both in 2018 and 2019: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=75&pr.y=6&sy=2017&ey=2019&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=922%2C134&s=PPPGDP&grp=0&a=

Additionally the sources given for the two charts only show estimates for 2017, not for 2018 or 2019. 188.103.206.98 (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The person who made that chart probably did not include Germany since they are included in the EU. Lojalist (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is called List of COUNTRIES by GDP (PPP)

Can you please stop adding all fta bullshit and keep the article clean? Can you? Or a mod who can actualy READ the title and link of this article keep clean. Thank you. Im just a viewer from time to time but enought is enought. Is not an list of ECONOMIES, is a list of COUNTRIES. Get over it people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0D:E12:AC00:F459:FD53:D0F1:4568 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The EU is not a country

Good grief. Enough of this ridiculous Wiki propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The Europeans could never suffer being behind the US, so they use a confederate of countries to boost their relatively low gdp by comparison. Mopenstein (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This list needs to be changed to exclude the EU, which as stated in NOT a country but a union of countries.--Neilpatrickwhelan (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Keeping or deleting EU information

I suggest, until a firm decision is made, to remove the data pertain to European Union. (see also Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)). Sunlitsky 17:05, 32 July 2018 (UTC)

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) 05:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep MaeseLeon.--Jklamo (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep per MaeseLeon. -Zanhe (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Depends - Keep if the other economic unions (Mercosur, EAEU, GCC, ECOWAS (CEDEAO), SICA and the economic union of Caricom are also kept. Otherwise I don't see any objective reason to include one and not to include the others.Odemirense (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

DELETE or if you keep you must add the data of the another economic and political continental goups like Nafta, Mercosur, Eurasian Union , Arab League etc...

1 year old data

All the lists are for 2017. How often are the lists overhauled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.142.2 (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

IF you put European union you must put Other Blocs, like Eurasian Union, Mercosur, Arab League etc. STOP FAKE PROPAGANDA

European Union isn´t a country, so including data of the continental blocs is a way to add other Economic and political groups! For the quality of informations in time of fake news and prejudicial propaganda is a good option exclude information of the continental Europe. and remain only countries like Germany, France, UK etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:88cb:ed00:3c03:a19d:8136:7c1c (talk • contribs) 2018-07-31T12:29:56 (UTC)

See Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)/Archive_3#Keeping_or_deleting_EU_information.--Jklamo (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2019 (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)

@Anna Frodesiak: That chart should go on the article List of countries by past and projected GDP (PPP). JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 02:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, JackintheBox. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Travel

Hii! I love bere.i'm sebastian from Romania. Age33.i visit south America,Hispanic. Nigeria,Russian! Great,great job doin'g the governmant in that's country. Travel around on world,living me cream😇😇😇✌😄😂😁 Cerchez (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What is "Current Int$"?

What is "Current Int$" (in sub section Lists)?

This is not explained.

--Mortense (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Int$ must be an abbreviation for International dollar and is adjusted for the current year. - Scio c (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

New statistic IMF 11 October 2019.

[6] Piter Ivanov 17.10.2019, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.8.118 (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Convoluted sentence

The European Union — and its European Single Market, a single market which seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour – the "four freedoms" – within its 28 to 27 member states, also involved in international trade negotiations — might also appears in some lists.


Multiple problems:

  • usage of en dashes and especially em dashes is dubious
  • space before and after em dashes doesn't seem to be typographically correct
  • grammatical error ("might also appears")
  • "its 28 to 27 member states" ??
  • redundancy: in the respective lists, the EU is already provided with a note which more or less explains that the EU is not a country and why it is included


Therefore, I propose deleting or changing the aforementioned sentence. --2003:F6:2716:A400:99C7:4385:4369:B54 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC) DATA FROM UNITED KINGDOM SHOULDN´T BE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION In both the GDP Nominal and at PPP, data from the UK shouldn´t be included in the EU.--88.3.139.225 (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

World bank citation for different year and data

I downloaded the pdf source for the World Bank list (http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP_PPP.pdf, currently citation number 6) The data is for year 2018, not 2017, and the data (for the first few entries at least) does not match the the data in the article. The article was last edited February 18, so it doesn't look like the list is in the process of being updated with more current information. Am I missing something?--Wikimedes (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Vietnam - wrong data and place in table for 2020

Vietnam PPP for 2019 was $770 billion. There is no way that PPP from 2019 to 2020(including estimated corona effects) will increase by more than 34% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.54.46 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

From the source "Vietnam on December 2019 formally revised up its gross domestic product by 25.4 percent for the 2010-2017 period, following efforts to align its official statistical methodology with international standards." 203.185.244.53 (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 gdp has NO PLACE in this article

not to mention the global economy has been shut down for the entire quarter. Where is the 2019 list ? WHERE ?Grmike (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)GRMIKE

I agree with you. 2020 estimates in this article is ridiculous. 180.129.12.250 (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The source remains the same as 2019, are we saying the IMF was reliable in 2019, but is not reliable in 2020? 203.185.244.53 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Confusing tag

This article appeears to suffer some of the same problems as discussed at List of countries by GDP (nominal). For example, Palestine/West Bank and Gaza is also numbered there so any denumbering requires consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

In view of contentious editing and reverting by an editor, I have added ARBPIA template for the portions of the article relating to the IP conflict.Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
In the event that there is continued disagreement, then the issue of this article and the other half dozen or so where editor AutoH2ORepublican appears insistent on adopting a non-NPOV approach to Palestine will be raised at WP:CENT for resolution rather than article by article resulting in contradictory consensus (islands of consensus, which is not what consensus is about).Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
As a reminder, AutoH2ORepublican edited on [2 Oct, 2019 ] with the following as edit summary
"Only generally recognized sovereign states should be number-ranked; data in CIA Factbook is limited to the WestBank, not to the State of Palestine as a whole; Western Sahara is a sovereign state (albeit with limited recognition), so its name should not be italicized"
Note that the CIA fact book lists both West Bank and Gaza, that there is no defined term "generally recognized" and that the criteria were amended to fit the edit.Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Selfstudier, if you bothered to visit the source for the CIA data--https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html--you would see that, when you scroll way down near the end, there is "West Bank." Not "West Bank and Gaza," much less "Palestine." I think tht the CIA Fact Book itself is a better source of what the CIA Fact Book says than what you say that it says.

Regarding my edit, I corrected the numbering in one column so that it was in conformity to the what article's introduction stated and how it was for the other columns. A whole slew of dependent territories and states with limited recognition had been numbered in what I assume was a careless edit. That is the "status quo ante that you claim existed and that I changed--the numbering of every dependent territory and state with limited recognition in one column, but the numbering of no dependent territories or states with limited recognition in the other columns. Should I revert my edit?

As you know, there recently was discussion on the Talk page for a similar article about rank numbering every entity listed as an "economy" by one of the three reliable sources whose statistics are presented in the article. In such discussion, you supported rank numbering all economies because, as has been your contention in countless discussions of other Wikipedia articles, "generally recognized sovereign state" does not create an objective, black-letter test and thus necessarily is POV, so no standard should be imposed. I warned against the repercussions of rank numbering every "economy," which would result in a generally recognized sovereign state's number going up or down based not on improvements in its economy but on whether the source decided to include or remove "Zanzibar" (a region withing Tanzania) or "the European Union" or "Guam" as economies. The discussion ended without a consensus having been reached, but I will admit that more participating editor seemed to support rank numbering all economies.

But that is not the edit that you made unilaterally. You continued your long tradition of claiming that the level of international recognition for the State of Palestine (whose application for UN membership was not accepted and which is not recognized as sovereign by 12 of the 15 UN members with the highest GDP; among the top 15 eecononly the People's Republic of China, India and Russia recognize Palestine, while the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain, Australia and Mexico do not recognize Palestine) is the same as that for the State of Israel (which is a UN member recognized by nearly all major economies, with the only UN members that do not recognize its sovereighty being 27 Muslim-majority countries, Bhutan, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela, with Indonesia and Iran having the largest economies in the bunch), which is not consistent with a NPOV. Your edit today was not a call for treating all economies the same, but for giving preferential treatment for Palestine (grouping it with generally recognized sovereign states such as Slovakia, Egypt and New Zealand instead of with states with limited recognition such as Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara), or else to treat Israel (and Israel alone among generally recognized sovereign countries and UN member states) as a state with limited international recognition. Your pro-Palestine advocacy on Wikipedia has been consistent and unrelenting during the past few years, and there's nothing wrong with presenting your opinion forcefully, but you should try not to slip into POV pushing, as I'm afraid that you are doing here.

And before you adopt a "tu quoque" argument and accuse me of anti-Palestine POV pushing, please note that I long have advocated for grouping Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara separately from de facto sovereign states with almost no international recognition (such as Transnitria, Somaliland, etc.) but not with generally recognized sovereign states independently of my own opinion of whether such aspiring members of the international comunity of nations ultimately should be successful; I'm personally extremely receptive to the claims of Kosovo, Taiwan and Somalland, for example, yet I consistently revert edits (and call for Talk page discussion) that claim that such de facto states should be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states (well, when pro-Kosovo and pro-Taiwan advocates try to add a number rank for the object of their advocacy; I believe that I only have encountered one case of pro-Somaliland advocacy, and it wasn't an edit to a list article). I believe in the mission of Wikipedia to present things as they are, not as one would like them to be.

By unilaterally number-ranking Palestine, and threatening to remove Israel's number rank if your edit was reverted, while leaving the Republic of Kosovo (the sovereign state whose current level of international recognition most closely approximates that of Palestine), you are engaging in advocacy for the State of Palestine, not in an effort to adopt a new standard for what economies should be number ranked in the article.

As to whether you should seek an RfC for your proposal to number rank Palestine--but not Kosovo or Taiwan--in this article. As you know, prior RfCs for other articles seeking to give preferential treatment to Palestine vis-à-vis other states with limited recognition have not been successful. I think that we first should see whether a consensus may be reached in this Talk page, perhaps not for the specific change that you currently are seeking, but for a change in the numbering criteria. One idea presented in the Talk-page discussion a few months ago was having two sets of numbers, one for generally recognized sovereign states and one for all economies listed by one of the three reliable sources. But, ultimately, you need to decide for yourself whether to seek a consensus in the Talk page or to seek an RfC. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not really in the mood to read any more of your non-NPOV walls of text on Palestine, I have read far too many of them by now. The fact remains you have just now made an edit denumbering Palestine/West Bank and Gaza (changing the status quo that you claim to maintain) and I don't agree. It's really that simple. (fyi, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html). I DO agree with you that there IS an issue, namely your introduction of non-NPOV material in 10 or so articles (and not just about Palestine although I have an active interest in that) and usually accompanied by a demand that anyone disagreeing with you needs to do an RFC. The Israel Palestine issue (or any other state "status") is not a principal subject matter of list articles, it is or should be nothing more than something very minor and addressed if at all by way of sourced explanatory footnotes (as it is in List of sovereign states) In the 10 articles I mentioned we have a mess largely created by you and I think we should finally resolve this issue centrally rather than having the same tedious discussion over and over at different pages and producing contradictory outcomes. In any area where it actually counts, Palestine is treated correctly and in an NPOV manner eg State of Palestine exists as a wikipedia article regardless of your opinion on whether Palestine is a state and all the nuance around that is dealt with there in detail and noet by some dubious OR/Wikipedian invented numbering/italics scheme.Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
And again with the strawman arguments. I have never said that the State of Palestine is not a state; I have always maintaibed that it is a sovereign state with limited international recognition. Pleae note that the State of Palestine (well, "West Bank and Gaza" in one column and "West Bank" in the other) is in roman font (not italicized), denoting that it is a sovereign state, not a dependent territory.
You are engaging in POV pushing by unilaterally treating the State of Palestine as if it were a generally recognized sovereign state while simultaneously denying such treatment to the Republic of Kosovo, which is the closest to Palestine in terms of level of international recognition of any sovereign state out there. Similarly, you are engaged in POV pushing when you threaten to denumber the State of Israel--a UN member state whose sovereignty is recognized by all of the countries with the largest economies--unless you get preferential (and, looking at it from a NPOV, undue) treatnent for Palestine.
You are free to argue that Palestine is a generally recognized sovereign state, and if you achieve a consensus then it will be numbered along with Italy, Bolivia, etc. Or you can argue that every sovereign state, irrespective of level of international recognition, should be numbered, and if you achieve a consensus then Palestine will be numbered along with Nigeria, Japan and Taiwan. Or you can argue that all economies listed by one of the three reliable sources for GDP by economy, should be numbered, and if you achieve a consensus then Palestine will be numbered along with Australia, Kosovo and Macau. It's your choice whether to seek consensus on the Talk page or to start an RfC. But you can't just spout "Palestine is a sovereign state!" (which I'm not denying) and unilaterally make POV edits that treat Palestine differently than how Kosovo and Taiwan are treated. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
You write so many walls of text that you forget what it is you have said, here is one quote from you:
"I never said that the State of Palestine aspires to have control over its claimed territory in the West Bank and Gaza; I said that it aspires to be recognized as a sovereign state, but that it hasn't reached that goal yet."
This is in direct contradiction with what you just said above. Interested readers may find this quote here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_15#The_State_of_Palestine_and_the_Republic_of_Kosovo In any case I have located the central discussion that was had many years ago and once I figure out how it all works, we will deal with this there (and here at the same time). Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
One element of the past consensus mandated the use of ISO 3166 (plus any states not in it but included in List of states with limited recognition in an appropriate and neutral way) for list articles using multiple sources absent a good reason not to do so; ISO includes the State of Palestine (but not Kosovo). So there is no need to "argue" whether Palestine is a state, the existing consensus has already established that. The business about italics and numbering appears to be pure OR on the part of Wikipedians.Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
What "contradiction@? I wrote that Palestine "aspires to be recognized as a sovereign state, but

that it hasn't reached that goal yet." Given that Palestine is not recognized as sovereign by 12 of the 15 UN members with the highest GDP--among the top 15 eecononly the People's Republic of China, India and Russia recognize Palestine, while the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain, Australia and Mexico do not--that remains true. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Be serious, here, I will help you, here are both of your quotes, one after the other.

"I have never said that the State of Palestine is not a state; I have always maintained that it is a sovereign state with limited international recognition." and here is you saying precisely what you claim never to have said: "I never said that the State of Palestine aspires to have control over its claimed territory in the West Bank and Gaza; I said that it aspires to be recognized as a sovereign state, but that it hasn't reached that goal yet." Just admit you are anti-Palestine and we can move on. Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Your problem is that you base your "logic" on your biases, such as your anti-Zionism and delusional belief that the State of Palestine is generally recognized as a sovereign state. This is why launch defamatory accusations against me and lie about words that are right in front of your face. Since your reading comprehension is so poor, let me explain the plain-English meaning of my two statements that you risibly claim contradict each other (and, even more ridiculously, claim as evidence of anti-Palestinian bias).
"I have never said that the State of Palestine is not a state; I have always maintained that it is a sovereign state with limited international recognition."
What I wrote here is pretty self-explanatory: I have always acknowledged that Palestine is a sovereign state, albeit with limited international recognition. And you don't mention that I've written many times that Palestine, like Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara, has limited, but substantial, international recognition. Another way of saying this, which I've also done many times, is that those four states have substantial, but not general, international recognition. All three of those phrases have something in common: that Palestine, Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara are sovereign states, just not generally recognized ones.
And here's my earlier statement, which you somehow believe proves that te statement that I just discussed is a big, fat lie: "I never said that the State of Palestine aspires to have control over its claimed territory in the West Bank and Gaza; I said that it aspires to be recognized as a sovereign state, but that it hasn't reached that goal yet."
That statement is quite simple, and it by no means denies that Palestine is a sovereign state. I had described Palestine's claims to being a generally recognized sovereign state as "aspirational," and a pro-Palestine POV-pushing editor accused me of denying that the State of Palestine met the criteria for being a sovereign state. So I pointed out that what I had said was that the State of Palestine aspired to have it's sovereignty recognized by the international community writ large, but so far gad not been successful in meeting that goal. Like that other pro-Palestinian POV editor, you fail to understand that a state can be sovereign yet not have its sovereignty recognized by other countries. Somaliland meets all of the criteria of a sovereign state, yet it is not recognized as such by any UN member state. Am I anti-Somali for pointing out that Somaliland is not a generally recognized sovereign state? And I am anti-Kosovar, anti-Taiwanese and anti-Sahrawi for acknowledging that, while Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara are sovereign states, they are not generally recognized sovereign states?
In your quest to get Wikipedia to proclaim the State of Palestine as a generally recognized sovereign state, your main impediments are not editors whom you falsely accuse of being anti-Palestinian, or even the State of Israel, but the governments of the United States, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, Brazil, South Korea, Spain, Australia and Mexico, which comprise the entire G-7 and five other Top-15 economies, none of which recognize the State of Palestine. The fact that the most economically powerful countries in the workd do not recognize the State of Palestine is the main reason why Palestine has not been accepted as a member of the World Bank (Kosovo has, as have all but five UN member states) and the main reason why Palestine's bid to become a member state of the UN was unsuccessful. If you shed your bias temporarily and looked objectively at the level of international recognition enjoyed by Palestine, you would recognize that it is a lot closer to that of Kosovo than to that of any UN member state.
Encyclopedias present things as they are, not as you wish that they were. You have every right to argue that the facts support Palestine (but not Kosovo) being a generally recognized sovereign state, but defaming other editors is not the best way of obtaining a consensus in favor of your position. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Yet another wall of text.~Duh.Selfstudier (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
All this was given a good going over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population/Archive_9#Fixed_ranking_column where, notwithstanding more of your walls of text and dubious opinions, Palestine is numbered and correctly treated in accordance with the existing WP consensus that Palestine is a sovereign state.(note that Kosovo is not numbered, not that I necessarily agree with that, what is missing is a central discussion in an NPOV manner of all the issues around differentiation between list entities).Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

2021 list

When does the 2021 list come out? More specifically, the ranking from IMF, not CIA or World Bank, they haven't updated much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.154.154 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)/Archive_3&oldid=1089600332"