Editor @AuH2ORepublican: has reverted my edit numbering Gaza/West Bank in the CIA list (it is already numbered in the World Bank list). In addition he has complained about my adding West Bank/Gaza into the IMF list from where it was somehow missed out altogether previously. He says that Palestine (same as West bank/Gaza) is not a state and yet it is in List of sovereign states and has been recognized by the UN as an observer state. It seems reasonable to ask whether we should accept this editors opinion or do we go with the clearly established WP consensus that he personally disagrees with? Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
@Selfstudier, I did not "complain" about you adding West Bank and Gaza to the IMF list. West Bank and Gaza is listed on that reliable source, and oversights should always be corrected. In fact, I would have thanked you for your edit had you not simultaneously made the POV edit to number-rank "West Bank and Gaza" when the article's introduction makes clear that states with limited recognition, including Palestine, should not be number-ranked. That was the extent to my objection to such edit, but please note that I did not revert it because I trust that you will return to the status quo ante (listing West Bank and Gaza but not number-ranking it) while the duscussion continues on the issue of whether sovereign states with limited international recognition, which includes Palestine but also Kosovo and Taiwan, should be number-ranked in the article. As you know, this issue has been the subject of several discussions and administrative actions regarding this and similar articles, but a consensus has not yet been reached.
I did revert your subsequent edit that added a number-rank for West Bank and Gaza in another column--your argument that "West Bank and Gaza already was number-ranked in the other two columns so this is just a confirming change" is too cute by half because it came immediately after you yourself had added a number-rank to West Bank and Gaza in one of the columns.
In order to avoid edit-warring, we agreed awhile back not to change the status-quo ante on number ranks until a consensus was reached. That is why I have never reverted the rank numbering of West Bank in the World Bank column despite it defying the rules that had been agreed years before and were spelled out in the article's introduction--someone had rank-numbered West Bank and Gaza on the World Bank column prior to our agreement to maintain the status quo ante while a consensus can be reached, and that included leaving the World Bank column as it was.
I ask you, please, to revert the changes to the number-ranks that you made to the IMF column so that it conforms to the rules layed out in the introductory paragraphs to the article. When a consensus is reached by the editing community--be it to number-rank Palestine and Kosovo, or all sovereign states regardless of level of international recognition, or all listed entities, or to keep it at only geherally recognized sovereign states--we can change the number ranks in all three columns. But, in the meantime, the status quo ante should be maintained. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not interested in your personal interpretation of Palestine status. There are pages and pages written by you on the subject, none of which has any consensus whatsoever. I leave it to other editors to respond accordingly. And for the record both of the IMF and World Bank entries for WB/gaza are numbered in the sister article,List of countries by GDP (nominal). So your position is in addition, inconsistent. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
"I am not interested in your personal interpretation of Palestine status." And I am not interested in your POV pushing. Pretending that the State of Palestine is a generally recognized sovereign state does not make it so. What's most ironic here is that even when organizations use the geographic term "West Bank and Gaza" to sidestep the issue of the State of Palestine's limited recognition you claim that "West Bank and Gaza" should be treated as if it were a generally recognized sovereign state.
And you are mistaken about the "precedent" from the "sister article" listing economies by nominal GDP. When the Talk page discussion on number ranking started back in May or June of 2020, the World Bank column did not number-rank "West Bank and Gaza" and the UN column did not number-rank the State of Palestine. On July 2, 2020, an editor updated the nominal GDPs for all of the economies listed by the World Bank, but when Albania leaped over West Bank and Gaza he or she mistakenly removed the number-rank from Albania (a generally recognized sovereign state) and gave one to West Bank and Gaza. Due to the ongoing discussion, the status quo ante regarding number ranks was supposed to be maintained, but no one noticed the mistake within that major edit. Then, when a different editor made several edits to the IMF column on October 15, including adding West Bank and Gaza to the column (which is the same addition that you correctly made two months later to the PPP GDP article), he or she made the mistake of giving West Bank abd Faza a number rank. Perhaps the editor saw "West Bank and Gaza" number-ranked to its right and merely followed suit, or perhaps he or she did so for some other reason, but in any event it was the 5th of 10 edits that the editor made to the article that day and no one seemed to notice the new number rank. I certainly did not notice the change in the status quo ante, or I would have reverted the change in numbering, just as I had reverted a prior edit that number-ranked Kosovo (which, like Palestine, has limited international recognition). There was never a consensus in the article listing economies by nominal GDP to number-rank the West Bank and Gaza, and it is disingenuous to claim that number-ranking it in the PPP GDP article is a mere conforming edit. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
All your POV non-consensus argumentation is very familiar, as I said, I will wait for the views of other editors with a more neutral point of view. There was a consensus list wide a long time ago in 2008 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Inclusion_and_Ranking_criteria_for_Lists_of_Countries mostly complied with until you and some others thought to impose your POVs. Note in particular "States with limited recognition should also be included in an appropriate and neutral way.", "Lists based on multiple sources should use ISO 3166-1" and "The discussion did not address "ranking" via numbering, italicization, bolding or any other form of differentiation between list entries." the latter having been invented by wikieditors subsequently and all of it OR.Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect Numbers
I think many of the numbers under the 2020 estimates are completely incorrect. I would correct it myself, but the page would not load. This should be fixed!! It does not match up with the graph/chart.
The numbers for 2020 are way off. Per the source you use and link to from the IMF, India's real number is 8.38 trillion and not the 4 trillion listed currently. China and the US have their numbers reversed, and other errors are too numerous to list. I'm too green to know how to edit this without messing up the chart format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.15.236.18 (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
List by the IMF (2020 estimates) fails WP:OR/WP:SYNTH
I removed the EU trade bloc, a bunch of 27 different sovereign states, each of which are also individually included in the table, from the 'List by the IMF (2020 estimates)' table as it is not compared with sovereign states (including each of its own member states) in the cited source. Selfstudierreverted that change. @Selfstudier: please check WP:SYNTH in particular, and explain how this is not a blatant contravention of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" and in what way does it make sense to compare the aggregate of the EU's 27 states with the individual states in it, and with other sovereign states? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
It is from the same source. What conclusion? I think you are also ignoring the ref? If it makes sense in the third column, why does it not make sense in the first? Anyway, I am not really bothered myself but since it was reverted once before there is evidently some disagreement and I think it would be better to discuss it first.Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Selfstudier, for the first table there are two sources, both from the same website - one comparing the countries and another giving the figure for the EU, and they aren't combined in the same list. Double-checking the CIA source for the third table, the EU should be removed from that list too as it isn't in the current CIA source. I hadn't checked the CIA one today as they did previously include the EU, but they've apparently now stopped that illogical comparison too. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
CIA includes EU in their list of "countries" (The IMF says the term "country" does not in all cases refer to a territorial entity that is a state as understood by international law and practice - they include dependent territories). So I think the "not a country" argument is not particularly useful as the sources are not specifically restricting themselves to sovereign states (and people even argue about what countries would be included there). The best argument is "not in source document" ie if it isn't in the specified source document then it should be excluded in the list (is "world" in the source documents?). I don't see any objection to having sourced data for the EU included in the article somewhere else other than the list. Anyway, if no-one else weighs in, then I won't object to EU being removed from the lists.Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The EU is neither a sovereign state nor a dependent territory, and cannot reasonably be described as a "country." It should not be included in the article even if the CIA lists it as an "economy," because multi-state economic communities fall outside of the scope of the article. I vote for removing the EU from all three columns. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I second removing the EU entirely. I made another post about this before. It would also bring us into line with the GDP page. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Proposal to remove the European Union from the list
The European Union should not be included in a list of countries, while others have pointed out that the EU does share some aspects of nationhood, these aspects do not constitute nationhood and if they did would justify the exclusion of EU member states. Since the removal of EU member states would in my opinion be undesirable and contrary to most readers expectations I propose that the EU should be removed from the list. This woulda also bring this article into alignment with the GDP nominal page.
Most objections to the removal of the EU tend to centre around the idea that inclusion of the figure is interesting for readers or an inherent objection to the removal of data. Which I empathize with and why I suggest the EU could perhaps be included in a separate table with the data from ASEAN which was recently removed and other supernational organizations. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk)
Country ≠ Sovereign state. And even if it did, it would probably violate WP:NOR to independently decide what constitutes a country on a case-by-case basis.
If the EU is in the sources used, then it should not be omitted. If not, then it should not be added.
The GDP nominal page is actually also in a state of flux, determined by a mixture of edit warring and vandalism. We really need a clearer consensus; A similar question was apparently raised at WikiProject Countries recently, but it focuses on subnational regions and it's not clear whether that consensus also applies to supranational polities.
However, I think having a separate list or section for country groups could be a good solution that avoids the risk of confusion. Maybe I'll look into that, or someone else will. Intralexical (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Always same history here on brexit wikipedia, you guys keeping EU out on any country list is annoying, any data update on the list is followed by an EU data supression measure thanks of selected exceptionalist brexit users camping on the same articles as they overwacth it almost daily, they may have good use of F5 key or the email article warnings. As any of the 27 member states plus allies and most of the world, except actually small brexiter population (thats not a country), no one's is going to support a neverending EU data removal policy on Wikipedia articles. I think is in right level of shame, sorry about that but the frustation of brexiters are poping on every digital media, platform, web...--Manlleus (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Why is Turkey listed as Asia when it is an european country? 00:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.42.243.139 (talk)
Because Turkish population and territory as well as its national capital are primarily based in Asia, and the country shares very limited features in common with European culture, similar to Egypt which is generally classified as African country despite it also having a small part of land bridge in Asia as well as its significant Arab cultural influence more closed to Middle East. Even both sources from the EU itself [1] and the United Nations geoscheme define Turkey as Asian, any problem? LVTW2 (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Turkey is not located in Asia but in Anatolia and Anatolia is cradle of European culture. Most parts of Russia is in "Asia" too. So does this make Russia an Asian country? All what you have quoted is racially arugmented, the only thing is that Turks are Muslim that's why you don't want see Turkey in Europe. It don't cares what I or you think, because politically turkey is part of Europe, that's why it is Nato-member and Nato is alliance between North Atlantic and Europe. So any questions? 00:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C1:9F2C:F63B:308B:E5B5:E767:CF8A (talk)
..and the "United Nations geoscheme" is including Northern Asia as Eastern Europe. Wikipedia is platform of impartial knowledge, so forget all your mental reservation and be objectively. 00:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C1:9F2C:F63B:308B:E5B5:E767:CF8A (talk)
Since when is the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, ... included in Eastern Europe, when it is Central Europe? Germany, Switzerland, Austria, ... are also Central Europe. The table was compiled by someone who does not know geography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honza1978 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Whether a country is "Eastern or Central Europe" is nebulous. I would personally classify them as Eastern but I think the whole region tab could be removed to avoid this kind of thing. It doesn't add anything to the table any way. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Personally I will tend to wait for the next new IMF report released in the end of April for the fiscal year 2022, and I will do the data updates with other similar indexes all together. It’s now too late for doing so because the new figures will be changed in less than two months. LVTW2 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The figure given by the IMF for Ukraine is compiled without Russian-occupied Crimea, as described from the IMF report[2] in page 8. Quoting as following:
National accounts data exclude Crimea and Sevastopol from 2014. The authorities continue to publish data for the conflict-affected regions of Luhansk and Donetsk, but data coverage, collection, and processing from the areas not directly controlled by the authorities are challenging. Statistical information is largely based on reports from some large companies which continue to work in the region, albeit at lower capacity.LVTW2 (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
From my perspective, I consider that it is better to remove all those "unions" from this list. Once you intend to put in a new entry, I will call for a review of this page and propose to remove all of them. You can try, but I cannot guarantee it would be kept for long. LVTW2 (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Georgia should be switched to Europe. If Cyprus, a country often regarded to be geographically entirely in Asia, is classified as Europe, and if Russia, a transcontinental country should also be listed as Europe, it's not clear to me why Georgia is not. At the very least, Georgia is sometimes considered a transcontinental country, so placing it square in Asia seems like a political statement, rather than a factual one. And please don't start with this nonsense about United Nations, the UN Regional Groups has it under Eastern Europe.
EU doesn't even have a unified single currency. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden don't use EURO as their currency. EU is not qualified to be on the list. 138.75.0.60 (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The fact that the currency isn't unified is irrelevant. That is not what makes a country, nor qualifies an entry in the table. :) It has many other things, much more important. Dhyana b (talk) 10:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I have to agree with Dhyana b. There are entities on the list that are not sovereign states, such as Hong Kong and Macao, or that have limited recognition such as Taiwan. The European Union is an economic superpower (among many other things) and this article is mostly about economics. The necessary clarifications can be made due to its sui generis (special) nature, as it was done in note list, but excluding the European Union is anachronistic and makes no sense.
Transcontinental States should be represented in both categories
Transcontinental states with significant territory in multiple continents should be represented in multiple continents.
This applies at the least to Russia, which comprises the largest portion of either Asia or Europe, and has significant population in both (it would ranks something like 15/50 countries in Asia for population using only it's population west of the Urals).
And likely to Indonesia as well, where the provinces of Papua and West Papua are on the island of New Guinea/Papua - which is part of the Australian continent (and under Oceania rather than being a part of Asia). 2603:7080:F53F:A300:745E:93:7830:75C3 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Forecasts
The table should not include forecasts. It should only include completed years, which gross product can be calculated and early estimated. Moreover IMF forecasts are simple projection. It especuially pointless in current prices, as they take last GDP growth, last currency exchange rate and inflation forecasts ad projecting it for future years. But developing currencies have huge volatility, making all projection incorrect in 99% of cases. And in most cases going off by 30-40%. That's a lot. Elk Salmon (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
From a Wikipedia policy perspective, the IMF forecasts meet all the inclusion guidelines that I can think of. For example, despite their shortcomings, the forecasts are independently notable according to our criteria. It is easy to find third-party coverage of the forecasts, for example here and here, and these are from just this past week. There might also be an argument that the forecasts are unexplained statistics, yet the article explains what they are in the very first paragraph. I agree that the forecasts in general have issues and do present a maintenance challenge, but in this case, the forecasts receive clear independent coverage and undeniably move markets. It would be interesting to get other opinions from a broader audience like Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think notability should apply to raw number statistics. Sticking always to forecasts in the table make an article totally unreliable. Elk Salmon (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Title of article
This is not a list of countries by GDP. It is a list of countries by PPP. Its name should be changed to reflect that: List of countries by PPP. It's very deceiving. Keystone18 (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Are you actually able to understand the difference between a measured quantity (GDP) and the measurement unit (PPP)?
Is your blatant fallacy representative of the assumed élite Wikipedian (that would explain a lot) or just of the average American? 109.54.117.24 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
PPP is not a measurement unit, it is a completely different metric. If it was just a different "measurement unit", the list of countries would have the same order as in "regular" GDP. 176.114.248.140 (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
There's no described "regular" method of calculation of GDP. Economists use the PPP method in the most things, e.g. like the GDP share of countries in the world, HDI etc. etc. GDP PPP and GDP nominal are different things, GDP nominal calculated with USD dollars. GDP PPP calculated with Purchasing Power Parity. E.g. Amount of $X can get you full your basket with 4X of services and products in some countries compared to US. 78.169.171.3 (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
This table lists Taiwan, but I don't think Taiwan is a real country, as it's legally a part of China. Should this be changed? Kelpor (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Country names in the table
Could the names for the countries be in double rows if they are long (as they are in the table for nominal gdp)? The table is a lot easier to read like that, at least on a phone. As it is right now, the first column in the table, i.e. the names, covers almost the whole screen, which requires a lot of sideways scrolling. 84.216.128.16 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I switched some templates around so just one or two entries should be squished on large screens now, and hopefully not too many on small screens.
The world map is wrong - it is showing Ukraine as gray ("no data") but its region Crimea as green, seemingly with the same colour as Russia. 109.49.139.84 (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
That’s nonsense. That means they should update and assign another 20% of Ukrainian territory to russia. None of the other Wikipedia articles show such nonsense maps which would acknowledge territorial claims of the aggressor in the context of an ongoing war. 103.137.63.205 (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Add the EU and Eurozone as combined entities with asterisks indicating that their totals are also included in the totals for the individual member nations and are not "double-counted" in the totals Laurencedunnegmailcom (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I have created a treemap of World GDP by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) 2020 in USD. I used the CIA World Factbook data. As a JavaScript framework I used the popular D3.js. The colors are the different geographic areas (e.g. Africa is green).
I propose to add a similar treemap to this page because it makes the relations of the GDP by PPP between the different countries more clear, than let's say a geographic word map.
If you need help in integrating a similar treemap to this page, I could jump in. Tderflinger (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Would be helpful to include EU as a column in the graph and as a row in table (with a footnote to avoid double-counting), or at least as a note in the text. While this is stated to be a list of countries, the EU acts together and showing how the total economy of the EU compares to USA and China (and others - Japan, UK, Russia) would be helpful to readers. Thanks. UsuallyWizard (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Russia's GDP PPP
According to the latest IMF data, Russia is now the fourth largest economy in terms of PPP GDP. That needs to be updated in the tables. 203.81.240.105 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
World map is totally illegible at a glance
Could we replace the world map with the original version, currently used in 13 other languages' versions of this article?
Original
The original is far more legible without having to zoom in and look at the legend. If you want to know a specific country's GDP, it's listed in the article. The original also better shows the global north-south divide.
Assuming this is a reply to my topic. I've gone ahead and updated the colors without changing any of the data. If this is contentious I'll eat my hat. Went with a new color scheme that should be even easier to read? Maybe?
In the section called Table, there is no need for the first two sentences to be in italics, per MOS:ITALICS. Perhaps someone might change them back to body text. 14.2.193.105 (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done Source you present does not mention GDP PPP at all or the number 13.28T. --Hemanthah (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Done I've also told you why for russia and cyprus on your other request Aaron Liu (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The redirect List of countries by GDP (PPP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § List of countries by GDP (PPP until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
_by_country.svg)
_2022_World_Map.svg)
_2022_World_Map_(June_2024_Recolor).svg)
/Archive_4#c-Aeroid-2021-10-11T23:11:00.000Z-GDP_PPP_2021_Selection.svg){kind=link}