Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Numbering of Palestine in UN list

I numbered Palestine in the UN list and it was reverted. Note that West Bank and Gaza (the same thing, these are the territories claimed by State of Palestine) in the World Bank list has a number. The edit summary for the revert claims the edit is POV but as far as I can see, it is the revert that is POV (also see earlier discussion under heading "Countries with limited recognition"). The reverter's edit summary also claims that Israel is a UN member state, which is true but UN member status is not part of the criteria given in the lead. Do we really need an RFC to remedy such an obvious deficiency? Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, there recently was discussion on this very Talk page 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 duscussion, 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. This is made all the more clear by the fact that you went straight to Palestine in the World Bank column (well, to "West Bank and Gaza," since the World Bank has not accepted the State of Palestine as a member) to give it a rank number without even bothering to look at the other countries on the list, four of which (Uruguay, Albania, Cuba and Tajikistan) are generally recognized soveeign states that mistakenly are not number ranked.

You ask 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) 18:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Tagging the article

Per issues identified in the sections above arising from recent reverts, "Countries with limited recognition" (arising as a result of a revert of Crazydude1912 by AuH2ORepublican) and "Numbering of Palestine in UN list" (arising as a result of a revert of myself by AutoH20Republican), I have tagged the article pending resolution of same.Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that West Bank and Gaza is numbered in this article. Now editor AutoH2ORepublican seeks to denumber it not in this article but instead at the related List of countries by GDP (PPP) which has similar (confusing) criteria to this one. This is consistent with this editor's non-NPOV approach to Palestine in this and some half dozen other list articles.Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Noted that AutoH2ORepublican has reverted yet another editor and using irrelevant POV/OR nonsense in the revert summary.Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Figure 1 is not sorted correctly

Figure 1 shows countries (almost) sorted by GDP. However, India is out of order, and shown 5th. It is shown ahead of the larger UK economy. This is confusing, and someone could easily miss that India is not the 5th largest economy. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.63.254.44 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing out. KREOH (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Create 4th column specifiying region and allow ordering on that column.

Create the categories EU, Europe, Non EU, East Asia, South Asia, North Africa, Subsaharan Africa, South America, Central America and place each country in that category in a forth column. Allow ordering by category, ie region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8001:5DF0:3913:86A:AC46:D5C (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There's no need or a duplication of information. I think is better to have a separate table for continents and regions too as informative purpose. EU appear in list of countries but just because is more than a region, specifically explained in a footnote to clear confusions.--Manlleus (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Storms in teacups

I was surprised to see the tag "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality" in the heading. It's just a list of numbers copied from data published by various respectable organizations, what can be controversial about that? So I came to the talk page and found a lot of heated discussion about whether the EU is a "country", whether Palestine is sufficiently "recognized", and so on.

Wikipedians: does it matter? People come to this page to get numbers. They don't come here to discover the legal status of the EU or Palestine or Taiwan or Kosovo. Since the main purpose of the page is to supply visitors with numerical data, it seems to me that any uncertainty should be resolved in favour of inclusiveness. Perhaps the Wikipedians who want to exclude places they consider are not "proper countries" (whatever that means) could be satisfied by a disclaimer at the bottom reading "Inclusion on this page does not imply any legal status of any included entity"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longitude2 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the target matters more than the numbers for some editors:/ This is not the only list article that suffers from this kind of politicized nonsense. In the case of Palestine, you have the self evident stupidity that Palestine is in the UN list without a number whereas West Bank and Gaza (the same thing by a different name) is numbered in the other two lists.Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The main function of this sort of list is not to show distinct countries, it is to show distinct economies. The vast majority of distinct economies are countries, but some econmoies which are listed by sources aren't necessarily countries or sovereign - and in the case of the EU are utterly unique. Those who debate which place is or is not a "country" are missing the point. Canada Jack (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The name of the article is list of countries by GDP. Claiming that the article also represents non soverign economies seems like after the fact reasoning to justify inclusion of the EU.

It also raises the problem of the exclusion of similar economic blocs like NAFA and Asean. A consistent standardised approach needs to be adapted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0123Qwerty3210 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

EUROZONE INSTEAD OF EUROPEAN UNION

Better add the just the €urozone ($ 13 Tr.) instead of the European Union Nation (E.U.) which is just a Common Market (and now the UK is not part of it...)--83.165.178.34 (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The EU is not a country.--213.60.237.52 (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we add in ASEAN, Union of South American Nations, Eurasian Union, GCC and African Union as well? They are also not countries just like EU. I find it odd that EU is on the page but not the other blocs. 175.156.16.78 (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobody ever said it was. But the EU is an economic union working as a 'virtual country' with a powerful single market. Exactly why they are included on the list (but not as a rank). See below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markusw0207 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

But it (the EU) isn't listed in the source that's been used. If the IMF estimates do not identify the EU as a separate entity for these calculations, why do we propose to know better? The European Union should be removed from the list as it's inclusion is not implied from the source that's used and it's inclusion is odd, given that no other trading bloc is included either. Kavanagh21 (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It is listed in various sources as a distinct economic unit, the other trade blocs aren't. The page is a comparitve list of economies, not countries per se. Which is why, for example, Hong Kong is listed. Canada Jack (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Various other sources is not _this_ source. The source that this page is based on does not list it as a distinct economic unit. Also, you say the page is a comparative list of economies and not countries - the title of the page is *countries* by GDP, not *economies* by GDP. If that is the aim of the page, then perhaps the title should be changed? The EU should be removed as a distinct unit. Hong Kong is listed on the original source as Hong Kong SAR, which is a single, geographically discreet, highly autonomous area that maintains independent economic operations at the country unit. Comparing it to the EU and using it to justify the EU's inclusion is like comparing chalk and cheese. Kavanagh21 (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidence exists and has been presented to show that the entity of the EU is not a country and should not be included in a list of countries (especially in this case, where the constituent countries of the EU are included which double-books their representation). This list may be corrected by removing the EU constituent countries, or by removing the economic and travel agreement entity. Since each EU constituent country maintains that it is In Fact a country, and they are recognized by the world as countries, it is only reasonable to remove the EU from this list (not the constituent countries). No sources have been offered to show that the EU is a country - only that inclusion of the EU is interesting. Inclusion of other economic agreements/partnerships/unions is not appropriate here, and therefore neither is inclusion of the EU. For this reason, we will remove the EU from this list and preserve the constituent countries within this list. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 02:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I invite editors to add more information about anything that is missed by this country. Per previous references recently removed from this article, parts of France and Spain are outside of Europe (and the geographical definition of Cyprus is apparently disputed). As countries, these should be included within this list, and all efforts to maintain correctness should be made to maintain the encyclopedic nature of this article. The EU has been removed from this list of countries, but should and may be included elsewhere where economic or travel zones are listed. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 02:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

European Union isn't in IMF's list

The article (probably deliberately) gives the impression that the EU is listed in the IMF's ranking, but it isn't. It should be removed from the list because it's putting words in the IMF's mouth. And the article also implies that the other two institutions don't provide a figure for the EU, whereas the World Bank does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it from the IMF's section, since it wasn't even listed in the same section as countries. It was listed in the "country groups" section, along with the Commonwealth of Indepedent States. If the EU should be included, shouldn't we include the CIS? My opinion is "nope,", this article is for individual countries (or the SARs of China, as they are in the same list in official country data). LittleCuteSuit (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Again that anti-EU campaign in Wikipedia is non-sense. EU stats are referenced and there's an explanatory note to clear confusions. Most of other country-related lists ranked EU for informative purposes but of course separate countries are numbered first. With these simple modifications to the lists or tables, no complains with arguments but only milion complains without arguments.--Manlleus (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The European Union has made major advances in the quality of life for those who live both within and outside of its borders. Inclusion in this list is neither pro or anti-EU. Editors here need to maintain the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. The EU is important but it is an economic and travel union that is not a country. Many other unions such as this exist but are not listed and should not be listed. Confusing the issue by claiming that such edits are "anti-EU" or part of a "campaign" is not helpful. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 02:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it now. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is a clear consensus against the move as proposed. BD2412 T 21:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (nominal) → List of economies by GDP (nominal) – Including supranational entities, such as the European Union, customs unions, and continents, would better serve readers by adding relevant context and making certain economic trends clearer. Some editors have objected to inclusion of such entities because "countries" is in the title of this list, so I'm proposing moving the list to match the desired scope. We already include notable non-sovereign jurisdictions as "countries", and "economies" also includes these, possibly more comfortably. I would also be happy with "areas" or another synonym, but "economies" seems to be the most common term (even though this could also apply to a province or city) and is already used in some graphics in the list. Presumably we'd want to rename similar lists as well, if this is adopted. -- Beland (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It was suggested to create a seperate table for trading blocs. This may be the best way to proceed while still being accurate 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you thinking that separate table should be in this article or a separate one? I think including it here would best serve readers, so all the info is obvious and in one place. We control the title, so "accuracy" with respect to scope is judged against whatever scope we choose to set. -- Beland (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Bitholov: the current title is OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitholov (talk • contribs) 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, this would break consistency with the whole bunch of {{GDP country lists}}. It is quite common that such lists include some supranational items. No such user (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see any valid reason for change except to prop up irrelevant supranational entities that are not even real unified economies. 27.104.203.24 (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose rename, Support inclusion of supranationals (amend the inclusion criteria), possibly in a separated table.Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

FTR, I've addressed this by adding "See also" section links to tables in other articles. -- Beland (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau should be included on the China figure

This exclusion seems ideological, Hong Kong and Macau are recognised by almost every country as de jure and de facto self governing parts of the PRC so I see no reason they should be excluded from the Chinese figure. What are everyones' thoughts? 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. Hong Kong and Macau are not countries. China has de jure and de facto control over these territories. Also, by the same logic, Puerto Rico should be included in the USA figures, and Aruba in the Netherlands figures.--Inloggat (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, disputed countries, dependencies, list ranking, and italics

I think these issues are also the source of the "original research" and "confusing" tags. My proposed actions are in bold to facilitate skimming; I'm wondering if we can form consensus around any of these?

Currently "West Bank and Gaza" are included in numbered rankings, but "State of Palestine" is not. This needs to be resolved, but how to resolve it has been disputed, and also affects how other countries would be presented. See:

• Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)/Archive_8#Taiwan_should_be_italicised
• Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)/Archive_8#Countries_with_limited_recognition
• Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)/Archive_9#Numbering_of_Palestine_in_UN_list
• Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)/Archive_9#Tagging_the_article

It seems we need to affirm which entries get rank numbers and which get written in italics.

Country is a broad term which includes several classes of things, some of which have been specially marked:

• Dependent territories - Greenland, Puerto Rico, Isle of Man, Hong Kong, etc. As it happens, no dependent territories are the subject of sovereignty disputes (ignoring the perennial "should we leave?" sort of political debate which apparently doesn't affect international diplomatic recognition).
• States with limited international recognition due to disputes - North Korea, South Korea, Armenia, Cyprus, Northern Cyprus, China, Taiwan, Israel, Palestine, Kosovo, SADR, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, Artsakh, Somaliland. These are all on the list of sovereign states.

Based on the conversation so far, and the practices on other Wikipedia by-country lists, I think it's pretty clear that the disputed/undisputed status of countries should not be indicated on this list. That status is generally not indicated on other lists. There have been arguments over whether UN recognition matters, whether both sides in a dispute should be treated the same, accusations of non-neutrality if any particular line is drawn saying some of these should be included and other excluded, and so on, all of which we can simply avoid. Some editors have also expressed a desire to separate political questions like this from the de facto economic statistics presented here; this does that. To implement this, we'd drop italics and add rankings for all sovereign states with disputed sovereignty, and adjust the wording in the intro.

It also seems clear we should continue to follow the sources when deciding which countries should be counted separately or included in a larger sovereign state (e.g. should Kosovo be counted as part of Serbia). That also pretty much answers the slippery slope question of what entities are included as countries at all. Either the UN, IMF, or World Bank have stats for Artsakh, or they don't, but to keep numbers comparable we shouldn't go off and try to find one-off sources for such countries anyway.

I like the practices of List of countries by population (United Nations) to indicate sovereign-dependency relationships. It puts footnotes on sovereign states to indicate whether or not a dependency or disputed territory has been included. For dependencies, the name of the sovereign is indicated in parentheses next to the name of the dependency. This makes it easy for readers to add up, say, the GDP of the U.S. and all its territories. Dependency names are also presented in italics, which is perhaps helpful to distinguish them, but I could go either way on whether or not that should be done on this list. Dispute relationships are not indicated (e.g. according to our own list, Taiwan is not a dependency of China, so there's no relationship listed there).

As for ranking dependencies, there are several options:

• Don't rank anything. Rationale: Sources don't use numbered rankings, and numeric rankings of any given country are going to depend on whether or not larger disputed and dependent countries are included.
• Rank everything that's not included in something else. Rationale: The rankings are just there for convenience, to know how far down the list you've scrolled, and to know where a country stands if you happen to sort alphabetically to make them easier to find. Not ranking dependencies means that when sorted alphabetically, readers won't know where in the list they stand. Consistency of numerical values lower down in the list is not important; whether a country ranks 180th or 200th really does depend on what definition of "country" one uses, and those definitions vary across sources.
• Rank only sovereign entities. Rationale: It matters to readers that e.g. Hong Kong not be counted in determining the national rank of Vietnam, because Hong Kong is not sovereign. Though readers could figure this out with the "rank everything" option, this makes it more convenient.

Many other by-country lists use the rank everything that's not included in something else approach, and I think I would be in favor of doing that on this list. It avoids classification disputes among editors, seems to be convenient for readers, and carries the most information possible in that column. The only things we wouldn't rank would be rows which are double-counting, such as trade blocs or continents or the world total, if we should choose to include those in the same table. I'm dubious about the "rank sovereign entities" option, both because I'm skeptical readers actually feel strongly about that, and because it seems somewhat judgemental. -- Beland (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I've implemented these suggestions and dropped the problem tags. -- Beland (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Objection: @Beland: Ranking anything for dependencies and disputed territories directly result in subjective bias on the part of the editor(s) involved. Noted disputes for Palestine, Taiwan, Kosovo etc are already well-known and discussed. My take is to follow an objective standard, that only the 193 sovereign UN states are ranked (others may be listed but not ranked); because some lists, for example as released from UN bodies, may only have the 193 members, while others such as by the World Bank may have more. This system ensures all lists will definitely have these 193 members and avoids the various subjective disputes. NoNews! 05:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with your objection. Please note that List of countries and dependencies by population assigns a number rank to "193 member states of the United Nations and the two observer states to the United Nations General Assembly". Beland's implementation avoids these tedious and quite irrelevant disputes over who to rank. A ranking is not the main idea of the list, which is to convey info about GDP. 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. 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) 12:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

The IMF has released the new World Economic Outlook in January 2021 so please edit the rankings of countries accordingly. The economy of UK has contracted by 9.9% whereas India's economy is estimated to contract by 7.7% implying India will be the 5th largest economy in the world. 2409:4053:39D:742D:0:0:2075:D8AC (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide a link/citation to this new ranking. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2021

Abrar Aousaf (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I will edit with full proof and sources that has correct details.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jack Frost (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

Abrar Aousaf (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)I can edit with full proof details from sources that indicate a country GDP nominal.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DanCherek (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Need for flags?

Applaused please give your reason for this and especially this revert. It's always good, not to mention courteous, to give the reason, especially when reverting a reasoned change, and it helps avoid unnecessary toing and froing. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for Applaused, but articles listing countries (in particular, those with economic rankings) usually include flags for better visualization. There is nothing in MOS:FLAGCRUFT that would forbid or even discourage the use of flags in this context: It is the countries themselves, not citizens or natives of such countries, that are listed, and the use of flags doesn't involve historical revisionism or potential branding of a people for the sins of their fathers (such as discussions of genocides). The onus would be on you to explain why the flags that long have been in the article should be removed, and to obtain a consensus from the editing community. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2021

The GDP numbers are wrong for UK and India in the IMF list (cannot be about 3,6 millions US dollars, but about 2,6) Tomarrr75 (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021

I have received some IMF report. Greatly i would appreciate it if you let me make edits to this nominal GDP by country? Abrar Aousaf (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

growth rate next to countries name?

. Pruthii (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

yes Pruthii (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with it if you know how to implement it. I assume you mean past growth and not projected.

0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2021

103.163.51.2 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think United Arab Emirates Gdp is higher than Bangladesh Gdp. Because United Arab Emirates Gdp is 353,891 million and Bangladesh is 348,891 million.

 Fixed, someone seems to have changed Bangladesh's GDP and not even ordered them correctly as according to those wrong numbers. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021

103.163.51.1 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I have received some IMF report. Greatly I would appreciate it if you let me make edits to this nominal GDP by country?

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 08:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021 (2)

103.163.51.1 (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Bangladesh nominal gdp is 348,891 billion u.s. dollar. And Bangladesh's gdp ranking is 35.

Please provide sources for this. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see the article Bangladesh. And see the nominal GDP of Bangladesh. Thanks. 103.163.51.1 (talk).

348,891 is not in the cited source. Where did you get that number from? M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I got the number from wikipedia of Bangladesh. Thanks. 103.163.51.1 (talk).

It's the Bangladesh article that needs fixing, not this one. M.Bitton (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Bangladesh GDP was increased

Dear editors, Please see the report of IMF- https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2020/October/weo-report?c=513,&s=NGDP_R,NGDP_RPCH,NGDP,NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPRPC,NGDPRPPPPC,NGDPPC,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,PPPSH,&sy=2017&ey=2024&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1. The report is shows Bangladesh GDP was increased 378,634 million U.S dollar. Masud984 (talk).

That's the report from October 2020, and the number you cited from it still made up. The number currently in the article from the April 2021 IMF report [1], $352,908 million USD, is correct. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021- I will keep posting until someone gets to respond my request

Some random editors always target states with limited diplomatic recognition over the list such as Taiwan, Palestine to be aligned with other dependent territories by using the same Italic font but they are totally different subjects. If the consensus have decided whether the largely unrecognized states shall be treated it would make sense, but the format of list is now an absolute mess which also gives ranks to some dependencies at the same time, e.g.Macau, Puerto Rico. The uneven use of Italic font or no ranks upon all non-UN members which is only tending to confuse two sort of distinct subjects into one. Please let editors know what the consensus is now reached for making consistency to the listing format of classification, along with a clear criterion to the clarification about what entities are now acceptable to be ranked?

And my personal proposal is, ranking all the entities that have been included by the sources, sidestep the issue of sovereign status (as this is not a point decisive enough to be made in this type of non-political related lists), just dealing like how other similar lists have done... For example: List of countries by Human Development Index. 123.195.130.73 (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Per this diff it was agreed to assign a number to every entry, I agree that not giving a number to Hong Kong and Taiwan is wrong. The last consensus is in Section 9 of this talk page above, I personally don't think italics are necessary but it looks like that needs a discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

Some random editors always target states with limited diplomatic recognition over the list such as Taiwan, Palestine to be aligned with other dependent territories by using the same Italic font but they are totally different subjects. If the consensus have had a decision whether the largely unrecognized states shall be treated it would make sense, but the format of list is now an absolute mess which also gives ranks to some dependencies at the same time, e.g. Macau, Puerto Rico. The uneven use of Italic font or no ranks upon non-UN members which only caused instability of the listing format and hard to read. Please let editors know what the general consensus is now reached for making consistency to the listing format of classification, along with a clear criterion to the clarification about what entities are now acceptable to be ranked?

As my personal proposal, ranking all the entities that have been included by the sources, sidestep the issue of undetermined sovereign status (as this is not a point decisive enough to be brought into this type of non-political related lists), just dealing like how other similar articles of country-list have done... For example: List of countries by GDP (PPP) or List of countries by Human Development Index. 123.195.130.73 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See the response above, rather than opening identical requests. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2021

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202101/1213104.shtml China gdp nominal is 101.60 trillion yuan ($15.68 trillion). This is mainland China alone. Please re-due the page 2607:FEA8:4CA0:7600:E5F6:A712:5AF:DE4 (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Global Times is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia; see WP:RSP. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is this LeChatNoirEtLeTra (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

2020 figures vs 2021

Can we have the final 2020 figures and not the extrapolated 2021 figures, which by default is a guess? This page should only have actual final numbers. Therefore for the IMF, can someone put the 2020 figures? Lneal001 (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This page is in 2021 estimated GDP numbers and rankings. Not should only have actual final numbers of 2020. Pullar56 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

But the 2020 numbers are NOT listed when they are final. Whereas 2021 isn’t. Please add 2020 Lneal001 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please put the 2020 figures Lneal001 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think 2020 data is more solid than 2021 estimates.--Manlleus (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

2020 data

2020 data needs to be in the center column. I agree it is not a good indicator/barometer for economic figures however it's important that we remain consistent and show data for the most recently completed 12 month cycle.Grmike (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)grmike

The years are of the latest available data from the three sources; they're not consecutive. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

European Union is not a country

This article is titled "List of countries by GDP (nominal)", however the EU is not a country; it is a trading bloc, or perhaps a customs union. Within this customs union, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom retain their own currencies, central banks and monetary policy. Under these circumstances, the article cannot be considered factually accurate.

To become factually accurate, the EU should be removed from the list of "countries". Perhaps create a separate article related specifically to Trading Blocks, including NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area, Mercosur (Southern Common Market), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:818:E659:1C00:380E:4ECE:F73A:FC88 (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

See the note: "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states that are located primarily in Europe. The EU is included as a separate entity in The World Factbook of CIA because it has many attributes of independent nations, being much more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur.[24] As the EU is not a country, China is the second ranked country on these lists." --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

So the EU shouldn’t be on this list at all. Degen Earthfast (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I must agree, the EU may share some attributes of a nation but these attributes are not unique that nevertheless do not make the EU a country. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The EU is treated by a lot of agencies and countries as a country . I don't see why literalism prevents us from having a comparative statistic in the list especially when the EU isn't even counted in the ranks. Romdwolf (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

In the IMF data, it's not listed along with the other countries, same with the World Bank data. It's listed separately, along with other economic entities like the CIS. We should not be trying to combine data which was separated in the original sources. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed EU from the page and I think there are no arguments for including it on this page of countries. It is not a country. Furthermore, I don't understand why EU was only included in the IMF table. If you add it back again, please add it back in World Bank and United Nations tables as well, to ensure some kind of consistency. Inloggat (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The page is a list of economies, not countries per se, which is why many economies which aren't recognized as countries - such as Hong Kong - are listed. If others don't list it, the we don't include it. Canada Jack (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

If this page is a list of economies rather than countries then the name of the article should be changed. Further if the EU as a trading bloc is included then other trading blocs like ASEAN or NAFTA should be included to be consistent.

Finally the EU is not listed I the IMF source data so including it in this column is misleading.

Overall the EU should be removed from the list as it mislead readers. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Overall you need to read footnotes to not be mislead. EU appears in the list for informative purposes. Check that.--Manlleus (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a sufficient response. It isn't sufficient justify the inclusion of false and misleading information by placing an onus on the reader to see a small footnote. Clarity and consistency should be our aim.

If the EU is to be included on these lists then it should be included in a seperate table from countries alongside other trading blocs and the name of the article should be changed from countries to economies. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence exists and has been presented to show that the entity of the EU is not a country and should not be included in a list of countries (especially in this case, where the constituent countries of the EU are included which double-books their representation). This list may be corrected by removing the EU constituent countries, or by removing the economic and travel agreement entity. Since each EU constituent country maintains that it is In Fact a country, and they are recognized by the world as countries, it is only reasonable to remove the EU from this list (not the constituent countries). No sources have been offered to show that the EU is a country - only that inclusion of the EU is interesting. Inclusion of other economic agreements/partnerships/unions is not appropriate here, and therefore neither is inclusion of the EU. For this reason, we will remove the EU from this list and preserve the constituent countries within this list. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 02:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I invite editors to add more information about anything that is missed by this country. Per previous references recently removed from this article, parts of France and Spain are outside of Europe (and the geographical definition of Cyprus is apparently disputed). As countries, these should be included within this list, and all efforts to maintain correctness should be made to maintain the encyclopedic nature of this article. The EU has been removed from this list of countries, but should and may be included elsewhere where economic or travel zones are listed. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 02:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Like List of countries by GDP (PPP), this list is no different and we must to admit it for the sake of Wikipedia and keep EU figures. Propaganda and brexit are out of question here and sincerely, it has nothing to do with all that but just for enciclopedic and reference purposes as they are numerous sources, even CIA Factbook, IMF datasets and more are kind to include it and nobody is asking loudly why.--Manlleus (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the EU has a flag, a hymn, a parliament, and executive government (European Commission), majority of countries use same coin and the others are pegged to it. EU should be included again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:887F:EC90:C1B:F44F:DB49:BCE2 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, these arguments have been raised in the past and it has been considered that these aspects don't make the EU a country. It has been suggested that those who want EU data on the page could create a separate table for trading blocs. Maybe you could float that idea and see if it has any concensus. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Should be added. NoOffensePlz (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The EU is not just an economic bloc, it is a policital union with aspects of a federation. Please re-add it to the list. YES, I do think that the removal of the EU from this list, which was there for years or decades, is driven by some anti-EU Trumpists or Brexiteers. --Sorabsuperstar (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of what countries should be listed?

As per above edit request, I am hereby opening a new topic here for establishing the consensus of the format of this list, please present your opinions regarding the improvement of the format of this article as well as any similar country-lists. My personal proposal is already well-presented over the above discussion. 123.195.130.73 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've raised this issue in the List of countries by population article and in the Countries project. My opinion is that WP:policy directs us to include and count all countries listed by the sources as such just like any other; not separated, not hidden, not collapsed, not unnumbered, not formatted, not distinguished in any way, shape or form that the sources don't do. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That is also my position.Selfstudier (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This issue was resolved at WikiProject Countries. The resolution can and should now be applied to this as well as to all lists of countries:

1. Having every entry ... debated and individually subjected to the consensus process on talk results in inconsistent and biased lists.^[1]
2. Where the list is based on a single source, the definition and nomenclature should be based on the source. Where it is not based on a single source, the best option is to use one outside reference point like ISO 3166-1 and stick to it.^[2]

— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guarapiranga: Does this consensus apply to supranational regions and polities as well? I.E. Would I be safe, acting in line with and protected by the established consensus, to restore the EU to the list where it shows up in the original source data? Intralexical (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe so, Intralexical. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 22:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

The automated sorting in the World Bank table is all over the place. If the GDP column is clicked to sort either ascending or descending, the results are not actually sorted. The issue appears to be that some entries in the GDP column include {{nts| (GDP)}} but not all. The entries in the IMF table do not use the nts while the entries in the UN table all do use the nts and neither has an error in the sorting. is for columns that contain both numbers and text, while all columns on this page contain either numbers or text.

I would request that all of the entries in the World Bank table, GDP column have the nts removed so that it can be sorted properly. 2600:1700:BB50:6830:F4BF:A8CD:66D7:2FA0 (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

In the 'Per the International Monetary Fund (2021 estimates)' list, India's GDP should be 3049... instead of 3249... 81.110.1.248 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The reference says 3,049, so we're sticking with that. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

Since the EU is not a sovereign country, it cannot be ranked, and it is hereby proposed to modify it. Jinsung (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Not bc it's not a "sovereign country"—country is a land; sovereignty refers to nations and states—but bc it's not a country (much like World). — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 01:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

tagging as answered ◎ | melecie | t 01:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this BTW. I would have unranked it myself upon adding it, but I barely managed to figure out the markup to even insert it. Intralexical (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The Dagger supercript on Italy

Why does the dagger (†) for Italy in the tables go to the page for Three the mobile phone company? HarmlessPerson (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Not here; in all 3 instances, Italy's dagger points to Economy of Italy. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 21:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

Just point out there are two major defects in the list which may seek to be fixed:

1. Yemen has got double entries in the table.(In the ranks of 110 & 131)

2. The latest database by the World Bank have renewed a number of national figures which may require some attention to be updated. [2] Curacao, Puerto Rico, and Yemen (2019); Cayman Islands, Greenland, Iran, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Sint Maarten (2018); Aruba (2017)

123.195.130.73 (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

1.  Fixed
2.  Done

  — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 22:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guarapiranga And Bermuda(2019) as well.[3] Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.195.130.73 (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 02:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021 (2)

The Saudi Arabia line in the GDP table has an extra newline, which messes up the table render. Preinheimer (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Curbon7 (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Iran region error

You put Iran under the Southern Asia region but it is part of the Western Asia region. Small error Rishoval (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

See below. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

And here: List of countries by United Nations geoscheme#Iran — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

Mexico’s subregion is marked as Central America but it actually belongs in North America my reference is the very link to Central America that has a definition of the area bordered south of Mexico. Thank You 2600:1702:1DB1:10E0:543D:4343:F319:C81E (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It seems that it's going by the United Nations geoscheme. While that seems strange to me, we can't exactly change one out of the list and leave the rest the same. Perhaps Guarapiranga could shed some light on the region convention decision. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That's right, @Volteer1; those are UN statistical regions, as indicated by the link in the column heading.
Mexico’s subregion is marked as Central America but it actually belongs in North America
These are not mutually exclusive; Central America is a subregion of North America (which in turn is a region, not a subregion):

The United Nations geoscheme for the Americas defines Central America as all states of mainland North America south of the United States and specifically includes all of Mexico.^[1]

The UN geoscheme divides the Americas in either North and South America, or Northern and Latin America and the Caribbean. In it, Mexico is part of both Central America, North America and Latin America: List of countries by United Nations geoscheme#Mexico — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Countries in the United Nations Statistics Division's geoscheme were explicitly grouped together into sub-regions so "as to obtain greater homogeneity in sizes of population, demographic circumstances and accuracy of demographic statistics."[4] "The major areas of Northern America and Latin America and the Caribbean are distinguished, rather than the conventional continents of North America and South America, because population trends in the middle American mainland and the Caribbean region more closely resemble those of South America than those of America north of Mexico."[5] This geoscheme was not meant to be used outside of a demographic context (other UN agencies like UNIDO use different groupings, for example) and I don't think it's appropriate for an article like this. Where a scheme for grouping countries is sought, my suggestion for articles not presenting UNSD estimates would be to default to the "conventional" six-continent scheme (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, South America) used in the UN Demographic Yearbook. Cobblet (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The major areas of Northern America and Latin America and the Caribbean are distinguished, rather than the conventional continents of North America and South America, because population trends in the middle American mainland and the Caribbean region more closely resemble those of South America than those of America north of Mexico."
  The article makes no reference to Latin America (which is what that quote is about).
• Countries in the United Nations Statistics Division's geoscheme were explicitly grouped together into sub-regions so "as to obtain greater homogeneity in sizes of population, demographic circumstances and accuracy of demographic statistics."
  The same is evidently true of economic statistics. The UN is also a source to this article, and it also groups its own GDP estimates in accordance with its geoscheme.

— Guarapiranga ☎ 05:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The point being made is that Mexico is not typically considered part of Central America. Neither the IMF nor the World Bank do so. The quotes from the UNSD demonstrate its rationale for making that grouping. That rationale is rooted in demography, not economics. Emphasizing the definition of subregions according to the UNSD's preferred geoscheme is WP:UNDUE when the IMF and World Bank do not use the same definitions. Cobblet (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC about adding the EU to the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus:

The debated point seems whether the EU is within the scope of the list (it's a significant economical and political union, and is present in some sources, omitting it would not be helpful to the reader) or not (it's not a country, and it's not present in some other sources, including it would be original research).

I note, emphatically, that participants don't appear to have reached a clear agreement. The applicability of policy to this is a bit clearer (WP:V is clear that material should be based on reliable sources, and WP:NOR is clear that editor opinions and interpretations of sources are not good reasons to include or exclude material), but this again doesn't favour one or the other sides of the yes/no question, since the sources themselves appear to be split. Thus, as to the RfC question, no consensus.

Further discussion seems to have been ongoing about including the EU in some different form, adding a separate section for supra-national groupings, or the like. That seems like a laudable attempt at compromise, although I don't see a clear consensus at this time either, and absolutely no reason to short-circuit the BRD process on that question.

On a purely procedural aspect, I note that if this affects multiple pages (as it appears to, since there are multiple "List of countries by GDP"), a more central location would be warranted. This might also help in getting a more varied and experienced audience to comment on any future question or compromise suggestion. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the European Union be added to the list of countries by GDP? M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• If the sources lists it, Yes. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 23:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• It should not be removed if it is in the sources, and it should not be added if it is not in the sources. As it is in the IMF source, Yes. — Intralexical (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• I vote No with the caveat that maybe adding the EU to a separate table of supernational entities would be a solution. As has been pointed out the EU is not listed on the same sheet as the other countries in the IMF data. If the source makes a distinction and lists the EU in a separate table, then we should too. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Include data on the EU bloc in the article somewhere, if it's in the sources. The status of a territory, country, state, whatever has nothing to do with this.Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• No It's not a country: it wants to be, but it's not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• No It can't be included as it's not a country. Sea Ane (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• No per WP:OR and WP:NPOV as it is not a country, it is a trade bloc comprising 27 countries which are already in the list. If it is included, then it would be necessary to include all the other trade blocs in the world such as NAFTA, ASEAN, etc. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Comment: Blatantly false, and refuted in depth by the first paragraph of our own article on it: "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union [...] a sui generis political entity (without precedent or comparison) with the characteristics of either a federation or confederation." Also inconsistent with Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#RfC:_Dependent_territories_and_subnational_areas. Wouldn't be relevant even if true, per WP:NOR. Would a separate section for supranationals, like List of countries by HDI#Regions_and_groups, be an acceptable compromise? Intralexical (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Intralexical, are you saying then that it is a country? It's not in any of the country lists in the cited sources, so how, other than by the use of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, can it be added to this list? The solution is to add it to an article comparing trade blocs. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. The EU is frequently listed in academic studies that compare states by GDP. It's helpful context. However, I do think the EU should be colored or italicized in a way whereby it's communicated clearly to readers that the EU isn't a state per se though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
• No EU is not a country but a political and economic union of countries. --HypVol (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• This is not a simple question. The EU is not a simple trade bloc, nor is it entirely a full-fledged country. It resembles countries but is not one. One question is whether it is useful and relevant to have the EU's GDP in a list of countries' GDP's, much like "World" is in the list, and this isn't the kind of thing we use sourcing rules around. (We don't say, "The source used a blue border for their chart, therefore we should as well".) We aren't making a statement of fact, we are making a presentation decision. However, this presentation decision has implications about how the reader is intended to associate things, rather like a question of category boundaries, or what kinds of lists to have in general, or usage of infobox types. Overall, I lean towards Yes, but if we are to go strictly by country delineations, we should also exclude things like Hong Kong, British Overseas territories, etc. (I think "World" could be kept in any case.) Regarding the idea to have a separate table of supranational entities: That does not work, as there is only one such country-resembling supranational political entity in the world at the moment. (The African and South American Unions are not particularly similar to the EU in terms of political role.) --Yair rand (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. I came to the page to view the EU's GDP and compare it to that of countries. So I think it should be listed in the table, with some kind of distinctive formatting. But if it's not, the relevant figure emphatically should still be included somewhere else on the page (which it isn't currently!) RyanCarey1 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• No It is not a country, and the article purports to list "countries" by GDP. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• No' clearly not a country. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• No The EU is not a country, and reliable sources commonly do not consider it a country. As I mentioned at some point last year too: "In the IMF data, it's not listed along with the other countries, same with the World Bank data. It's listed separately, along with other economic entities like the CIS. We should not be trying to combine data which was separated in the original sources." LittleCuteSuit (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Some users want to imply that adding EU is kind of a recognition of its "countryhood" (well, where's England, Wales, Scotland and NI? They are all countries and each features its own jersey on the football stadiums:)), but that's not how it should be interpreted. The EU is frequently referenced in comparison with the US, or China, or other countries (can provide examples if asked for). Therefore we should include it and we shouldn't interpret it as any kind of endorsement of its supposed country status. Addressing the argument that ASEAN, Mercosur, G7 etc. are not included but should be if EU is, these blocks are far from being as integrated as EU is (ASEAN is arguably the closest) and are often not seen as a unique entity, unlike the EU. (As an example, Trans-Pacific Partnership does not include all ASEAN countries and each negotiated in its own right; however, free trade agreements (FTAs) in the EU are negotiated from the bloc's position, even if individual countries have a lot of say in that and ultimately ratify the deal, so that we don't have France-Canada or Mexico-Spain FTAs but we certainly have an EU-Canada deal). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, should be added. With a different formatting and without the rank in the first column in my opion. Fundatus (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - absolutely. Looking at the "Largest economies by nominal GDP in 2021" and missing EU is one of the weirdest things among major Wikipedia lists. SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• If the sources lists it, Yes. Not to do so constitutes WP:OR:

  Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

• Failing to do so introduces bias WP:NPOV:

  All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

• If the sources include an entry in a list along with other data reproduced on WP, editors ought to include it also. If it ranks the entry, editors ought to rank it too. If it doesn't distinguish the entry in any way, shape or form, so mustn't editors either. WP:RS talk, WP:OR walks. That's the conclusion of another RfC recently conducted at WT:COUNTRIES:

1. Having every entry ... debated and individually subjected to the consensus process on talk results in inconsistent and biased lists.^[1]
2. Where the list is based on a single source, the definition and nomenclature should be based on the source. Where it is not based on a single source, the best option is to use one outside reference point like ISO 3166-1 and stick to it.^[2] — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 23:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Guarapiranga, none of the three cited sources include the EU in their lists of countries, as far as I can tell. Which sources are you referring to? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• While the EU is in the IMF source, it is actually in a separate section from the national entries, and it's listed alongside numerous other groups and regions that aren't in the article, like ASEAN and the G7. 0123Qwerty3210 suggested in a nearly identical context that the EU and other supranational entities could be included in their own table, and I think that may actually be the best way to avoid WP:OR. It would include the EU as it is in the source, it would make it clear that it is a qualitatively different type of entity from the national rankings as is made clear in the source, and it would also provide a place to also include the other regions and unions that are in the source but not in this article. I think this second table would best be added as an article section, similarly to how List of countries by HDI#Regions_and_groups and Democracy Index#By_region are formatted, [to avoid making a second table for every one of the Lists_of_countries_and_territories]. — Intralexical (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: @Sea Ane: @DeFacto: I'm curious how you feel about this above proposal and its rationale. Intralexical (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Intralexical, I don't think we need more tables in this article, the non-countries can go into another list article with a scope that covers them. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  @DeFacto: Do you believe that we should also split the sections for List of countries by HDI#Regions_and_groups and Democracy Index#By_region into their own articles, then, as well as create separate articles for all of the other Lists_of_countries_and_territories where the source dataset includes supranational entities? This article is about countries by GDP; countries in aggregate still falls within that scope. Also, what you are saying about separating all "non-countries" directly contradicts the conclusion of another recent RfC: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#RfC:_Dependent_territories_and_subnational_areas — Intralexical (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Intralexical, in this discussion I'm only interested in matters concerning this list article. Discussions specifically about other list articles belong on their respective talk pages. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  @DeFacto: Fair enough. But what would you suggest the other list article should be titled? The IMF source only distinguishes its entries as "Country Groups", which includes the EU and other economic unions, but also includes divisions based on geographic regions, other types of political organizations, and income range. Same for the World Bank source, which doesn't even make any distinction between groups and sovereign states. The only common characteristic of all those entries is that they are of countries, hence why I think including them on this article would be well within its scope. This is a page about countries; countries described in aggregate are still countries. Intralexical (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Intralexical, to be honest, I don't much care what any other article to contain them might be called, all I care about here is that this article isn't cluttered with them and remains true to its title. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  @DeFacto: Frankly, I think both your past two comments here have been non-answers aimed at evading the point and shutting down questions rather than reaching a consensus.

  So, more explicitly:

  Why do you believe that data on countries, when organized by group and region, no longer falls under the scope of an article about countries? Why is a summary of nominal GDPs for countries by region not "true to [the] title" of an article about "countries by GDP (nominal)"?

  And:

  Why do you apparently apply that special standard to "this article" in particular? What is special about nominal GDP that sets it apart from, E.G., HDI and the Democracy Index?

  This isn't "about other list articles" like you claim it is. This is about explaining the reasoning for your opinion on this article, and explaining why it should differ so much from the status quo in other equivalent articles. That you refuse to do so indicates a lack of good faith.

  Intralexical (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Intralexical, this talkpage is for discussing the content of this article, and I don't think the EU belongs in this list article, for reasons I have already explained. Would you expect to find teams and the total number of goals they had scored included in a 'list of football players by goals scored' - after all, they do contain football players? Or mountain ranges included in a list of mountains? Whether the EU is included in another list article, or not, is of no concern here. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  @DeFacto: List of English football champions includes not only a list of teams, but also lists and maps of cities and regions. List of men's footballers with 50 or more international goals has a section dedicated to listing confederations' totals, as well as another section listing countries. I don't see you or anyone else throwing up a big stink about that content being "out of scope" there.

  To address the original examples you posted and deleted, I would be delighted to find a breakdown of tree populations by their geographical distribution in different forests in an article listing tree populations, yes. And the article List of highest mountains on Earth does in fact include a paragraph on geographical distribution and a data section showing a breakdown by country.

  These also aren't very good analogies. Trees and forests, mountains and mountain ranges don't have many common traits that can be meaningfully compared with each other— Height? Area? Prominence? Soil quality? States and blocs of states do have many properties that can be meaningfully compared— GDP, HDI, etc. Mountain ranges are more than the sum of the mountains situated within in them; Political entities, at least on this data-driven level, are nothing more than the sum (or the average) of the subregions that comprise them.

  Why do you say that it "is of no concern here" "whether the EU is included in another list", but you apparently seem to think a silly hypothetical about football players, trees, and mountain ranges is of concern?

  You're ignoring real examples and analogies that don't support your opinion, and you're making up faulty analogies to focus on instead.

  What's more, even the irrelevant examples you made up yourself don't support your argument when you look at how they're actually handled on Wikipedia. The more you say, the more this seems like a WP:CPUSH.

  Intralexical (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Intralexical, your red herrings do nothing but weaken your point and reinforce mine. This is a list of countries, the EU is not a country. With no new evidence to contrary, I remain resolute. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Calling something a red herring does not make it such. My "red herrings" are literally nothing more than a sober look at the dubious examples you tried to provide. Apparently, you think that analogies and precedents are valid so long as they exist exclusively within your imagination— And once the reality of those precedents is shown to directly contradict your imagination, they conveniently become "red herrings" beyond the scope of discussion. Remain as resolute as you like; we both know by now that you're not arguing from a position of good faith, and the hypocrisy of your rhetoric illustrates that nicely. Intralexical (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Intralexical, If you have nothing to add other than personal attacks, then it's probably time to cease interacting with you. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  @DeFacto: See, this is what you've been doing, isn't it? I offered a compromise solution, and you rejected it. I cited supporting examples, and you said you weren't "interested" in discussing them. I asked if you could elaborate on your proposed alternative, and you outright admitted you "don't care much" about trying to improve the Wiki with it. I examined the examples you provided yourself, and you claimed they were red herrings.

  • Geopolitical facts are not out of scope for an article about countries.
  • Precedents are not red herrings.
  • Stating the facts of how you've conducted yourself is not a personal attack.

  You may pretend that anything which contradicts what you want is "nothing to add", but that doesn't make it true.

  Intralexical (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  @User:Snooganssnoogans: You've dealt before with this particular user's obstructionist WP:CPUSHing. I'm wonder whether you would like to weigh in on this discussion? Intralexical (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Snooganssnoogans: Given the fact that you have obviously been canvassed to this RfC, I had no choice but to tag your !Vote. I hope you understand. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Agree 100%. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 03:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, anything for a quiet life.Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  @0123Qwerty3210: maybe adding the EU to a separate table of supernational entities would be a solution.

  Sounds like we're rapidly approaching a consensus. That being the case, I made it easier to add the additional table, without overpopulating the page with a plethora of them, by consolidating the three source tables into a single one (which also makes it easier to compare their figures for the same countries). The {{static row numbers}} on the 1st column make it easy to rank by any of the other columns, and having columns for years and notes makes it easier to point out their different times and circumstances (noticing that the World Bank's estimate years vary substantially across countries. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 10:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed, listing EU and other supernational entities separately is the appropriate response.Tchouppy (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• As of this comment, the survey counts stand at 3 for "Yes" and 3 for "No".

  Taken into consideration the comments left with the survey and the threaded discussion, unique users that have expressed an opinion seem to break down as follows:

  0 for unconditional inclusion.

  3 for conditional inclusion, if it's in the sources, per WP:NOR. (Guarapiranga, Intralexical, Selfstudier)

  2 for conditional inclusion, as a separate table, if doing so reflects the sources, also per WP:NOR. (0123Qwerty3210, Tchouppy)

  2 for unconditional exclusion. (Redrose64, Sea_Ane)

  Considering that both of the votes for unconditional exclusion cited nominal non-"country" status as their rationale, and that neither of them have expressed an opinion on whether that concern would be ameliorated by inclusion of the EU and other country groups under a separate table more directly reflective of the source data's structure, I think this result reflects a tentative consensus that including the EU and other supranational entities under a separate section, as in the source, would be the best option that avoids WP:OR and is acceptable to the widest range of opinions.

  Intralexical (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  Agree. The key phrase there, to comply with WP:NOR, is: as in the source.

  @Intralexical: Still early days. I think it's best to let the RfC run its course and then let the closer decide. M.Bitton (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• @DeFacto: I'm saying it's not a sovereign state, but whether or not it is a country is (1) ambiguous, given that it clearly is a country by some definitions while clearly not being a country by other equally valid definitions and (2) moot, as trying to determine that ourselves constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I agree that having a separate comparison for trade blocks would be the best solution most reflective of the sources, but to avoid making a second table for every one of the Lists_of_countries_and_territories, I think we should follow the example set by List of countries by HDI and add a section under the same article for regions and groups. Intralexical (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Intralexical, it's not ambiguous at all, the EU is not a country. It might have some of the attributes of a country, but then so does a football team, but doesn't mean that either is a country. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  On this theory the US is not a country because some powers are devolved to the states..oh, just like the EU. The Supreme court you say? The EU Court of Justice I say. The $. The Euro. Fact is you are just arbitrarily making up rules about what a country is or isn't. And merely because the title says "countries" means nothing, sources and criteria are the thing, nothing more. I still don't really care whether it is in or out though, I just don't understand all the fuss about keeping it out, why is it such a big deal?Selfstudier (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier: If you're arguing that the US is essentially analogous to the US then we would have to remove the EU 27 from the list as the 50 US states aren't included and I don't think that's what any one wants. Besides you are missing a massive point, the writers of the US constitution set out to create a single nation. They thought of themselves as such. The writers of the Lisbon treaty certainly didn't. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier: The US is a member of the United Nations; the EU is not. Germany is a member of the UN; Pennsylvania is not. The US is better compared to Germany: both are members of the UN; both are federal unions of several states; both have a republican form of government with a President as Head of State. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't care what the founders did (of either, or of the United Kingdom (and Northern Ireland)), we don't make up rules of our own as to what is a "country". All that matters is article sources and agreed criteria for inclusion. I am not advocating it but we could agree that only UN member states are "countries" for example. Personal opinions are neither here nor there on WP. If it was straightforward a discussion like this would not even be necessary, would it?Selfstudier (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier: Again you're missing a very important point, the IMF data does not have the EU in the same list as the countries, if we were to do so, that would be adding our interpretation. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  I am missing nothing, I remain of the view that this is nothing more than a storm in a teacup and I am not really concerned whether it is in or out but still I see nothing wrong in having data about the EU economic bloc in the article, what harm does it do? It's not as if it was useless or irrelevant info.Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's misleading, as it may lead readers to interperate the EU as a country. It double counts EU member states. It's inconsistent as other super national entities are not listed and worse of all it imparts a change on the source as the IMF data does not list the EU in the same document as the list of countries.0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  I amended my vote slightly, I think the data should be included somewhere in the article if it is in the sources. How about Is Antarctica a country? The future of the world's least understood continent (CNN) :)Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The EU should be definitely added to the page.

The consistency problem can easily be solved by simply not classifying it as the rest, "it has already been raisen before" that is another argument that a person usually says but it does not mean that it can't be refuted. It can be added because it is in a context of economies, and our main objective must be to inform people, it does not have to be a country. And that will not confuse it with the procedure that I already said. In every case, some are making the fallacy of the false dilemma in which the person I mean only provides two possible scenarios, but in reality there is more to getting the right thing without distorting the rest. Be constructivos instead of being destructive. Some people don't seem to understand that the premise of consistency can be achieved. That is why eliminating the EU is useless. LeChatNoirEtLeTra (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you're just rehashing what has been said before. Now that you know about the consensus building process, I suggest you follow it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, The current proposal doesn't raise any new points that haven't been discussed in the past and as the nature of the EU has not changed since the former decision was made, I see no justification for making this change. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with LeChatNoirEtLeTra. The removal of EU was never justified, hence there is no reason to bring new arguments, the given arguments have merrits. The removal was vandalism in the first place, seemingly driven by Trumpist and Brexiteers who wish to diminish the relevance of the European Union. --Sorabsuperstar (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree with LeChatNoirEtLeTra and Sorabsuperstar. The EU is in the source dataset, and it is included in directly equivalent lists using the same sources, like List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP).

Including it also seems in line with the consensus established at WikiProject Countries.

If the EU is not included, then the list should be renamed to "List of sovereign states by GDP (nominal)", and the following disputed, supranational, and subnational regions and polities should be removed as well: World, Hong Kong, Macau, PRC, North Korea, South Korea, Israel, Greenland, Curaçao, Puerto Rico, Aruba, French Polynesia, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, New Caledonia, British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos, Sint Maarten, Cook Islands, Anguilla, Montserrat

The article lead itself says:

"Non-sovereign entities [...] and states with limited international recognition [...] are included in the list where they appear in the sources."

The EU appears in the same IMF source as the rest of the list. To exclude it defies the generally established consensus, violates WP:NOR, contradicts the article itself, and defies good sense.

Intralexical (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with LeChatNoirEtLeTra, Sorabsuperstar and Intralexical; when WP:RS talks, WP:OR walks. Consensus does not override policy. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 21:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The trouble is that RS do not describe the EU as a country. Maybe it's time to start a RfC and see what the community thinks. M.Bitton (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, you can always issue a new RfC, but a recent one has already been concluded on this very same issue (WT:COUNTRIES):

1. Having every entry ... debated and individually subjected to the consensus process on talk results in inconsistent and biased lists.^[1]
2. Where the list is based on a single source, the definition and nomenclature should be based on the source. Where it is not based on a single source, the best option is to use one outside reference point like ISO 3166-1 and stick to it.^[2]

The column heading says Country/Territory, not Country (as an aside, country means land; it's not synonymous with nation-state, it doesn't imply sovereignty). If the sources don't indicate which entries are countries and which aren't, editors are not at liberty to make that up. If the sources include the EU in the list, so ought WP. If they rank it, so ought WP. If they don't distinguish its formatting, so shouldn't WP. Sources say, WP do. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 21:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Since the EU is neither a "dependent territory" nor a "subnational area", I don't see how a RfC about "Dependent territories and subnational areas" could possibly apply to it. I still believe that this issue won't go away until it settled by a RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it is a "country" or not and this article is not about sovereignty so I don't really see what all the fuss is about including it. But if you want an RFC go ahead there is nothing to prevent you opening one.Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Who said anything about sovereignty? It's not what I want (I honestly couldn't care less whether it's included or not), it's just that this is a recurring issue that (in my view) is ripe for a RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't care either, I said so above and since most want to keep it in, let's just leave it like that.Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

it's just that this is a recurring issue that (in my view) is ripe for a RfC.

Indeed it is, hence why we conducted one at WT:COUNTRIES, as it's recurring not only here, but in all lists of countries. And the conclusion was... Sources say, editors do. (No surprise there, given WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:YESPOV). — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 23:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I do think the EU should be included as it is in the source dataset. But I also agree with User:M.Bitton in that it would be far better to have an RFC explicitly put this question to rest once and for all than to keep have this dispute and its associated edit warring play out on repeat on every country list.

I wish the other recent RFC had been worded less specifically. While I personally think a reasonable reading of it would interpret it to also apply to supranational regions in the absence of contradictory consensus, it technically does present a focus on "dependent territories and subnational regions".

As another Comment: It was suggested by User:0123Qwerty3210 on the PPP version of this page that the EU, along with other supranational organizations, could be included in its own table. I actually quite like this idea. It is a fair point that while the EU is in the same IMF source dataset as the rest of list, it is in a separate section of that dataset, and so are other other polities and regions like ASEAN and the G7.

In order to avoid having a separate "regions/supranational organizations" version of every country list, I think this secondary table could be be a new section of the same article. This is similar to what is presently done on List of countries by HDI and Democracy Index.

Aside from being a place to put the EU, I think this separate seciont would also make the article more complete and a more accurate reflection of the IMF source data, which does make a qualitative distinction between the EU and sovereign states while also including supranational entities other than the EU.

Intralexical (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Agree. The European Union was very obviously censored from this page by spurious political reasons and should be reintroduced ASAP. MaeseLeon (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  @MaeseLeon: Please see Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#RfC_about_adding_the_EU_to_the_article. M.Bitton (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton: I did. I can't see but lame excuses by Brexiteers and Trumpists to censor and exclude the EU. The presumption of good faith has limits. MaeseLeon (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  Per the RFC close, I think a statement about the EU can be added to the article (not in the list itself), if someone wants to do that. Then it is a question of whether that would end up staying in or editors would find that objectionable as well, and possibly leading to yet another RFC on that narrower question.Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

Sri Lnkan GDP should be 68 dominican republic should be 69 see the values 2402:4000:13C7:455E:DC7B:8203:4EF8:52BE (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

GDP ranking is wrong

Bangladesh GDP is 352,908 million and Vietnam GDP is 354,868 million and South Africa GDP is 329,529 million. So, Vietnam GDP ranking will be 40, Bangladesh will be 41, and South Africa will be 42. But in there Bangladesh ranking no. is 40, South Africa is 41, and Vietnam is 42. So, check it carefully. Thank You. - (Razin71)(talk) 00:26, 20 November 2024 UTC [refresh].

I think it has been explained clearly on the headnote over the list that the rank is decided by the average figure of three listing sources combined to each country 123.192.182.76 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021

This data is outdated. Please update to [World Economic Outlook Database, October 2021] 120.142.32.110 (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide the updated tables. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe the request is to change the IMF column data, which is from the April 2021 IMF World Economic Outlook database, to the most recent data, which is from the October 2021 IMF World Economic Outlook database. This means updating the whole IMF table (or most of it) and not just a few entries. 193.138.94.10 (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide the wikitext for the updated table. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: removing vandalism

"Elon Musk" appears as an entry in this page, which is probably vandalism. It should be removed. Szezine (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2021

Bangladesh should be ranked 33rd based on the list, please make that change. 137.132.213.16 (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 Already done   melecie   t 12:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

IMF's data needs to be refreshed (October 21 available)

I'm not sure what's going on, but there's at least one giant difference between the April and October 21 GDP reports and that's the current GDP of Iran. In the previous report (which is cited on this page) it's $680b whereas in the new one it's $1.08t. So I think we need it to be updated here also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:6607:CE86:7DC3:22FB:F3D9:4732 (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I would also be very grateful if the IMF data could be updated to the October 2021 figures, as the IMF's Excel sheets make ranking rather painful (by not sorting countries by region, and by including whole regions together with countries). Thanks in advance! 193.138.94.10 (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes the latest WEO report has been released here: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO --Supernodream (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

There it still refers to the April 2021 database (Data tools near the bottom) so that's what we are using until they update that I guess.Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

GDP Europe

Can the GDP of the european union be included? --2003:C0:706:C700:F1E2:46A3:67E2:2E6E (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed not long ago. M.Bitton (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The EU is neither a country or dependent territory, you should read the title of the article before even asking. 123.192.182.76 (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021

Hello, the 2021 estimate of the following countries :Mauritania, south africa, India, Pakistan and bulgaria are wrong. Bulgaria is 78.1 billion dollars, Pakistan is 241 billion dollars. Mauritania is 11.3 billion dollars. South africa is 341 billion dollars. India is 3.21 trillion dollars. My sources is from an article by ramasha showing the GDP of the countrys. Ramasha is very accurate and praised in the media of my country (Suriname) and I was bored today so I decided to correct some things. I don't know if this goes to you but I am requesting you to change these. I'm understanding why you will not change it but Ramasha times journalist are very reliable. they even showed one documentary which was 100 percent factual and reason of this, I request you change the numbers. You can watch Ramasha in Paramaribo city Suriname. And as we say it in sranan (Mi o si) 24.191.196.143 (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2022

There are a lot of wrong informations about this page all the countries have wrong numbers and rankings of gdp, you may check the April 2021 outlook of IMF to see the correct numbers and rankings of countries’ nominal gdp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User pao (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Please state your changes in an 'x to y' format and cite a reliable source if necessary to make an edit request. The article is currently on 2020 data, please be patient and a Wikipedian will be updating it eventually, or hang around for a few days, become [[WP:AUTO|autoconfirmed and make appropriate changes yourself. Signed, IAmChaos 02:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

New data reverted

SGSGSG1123445, why did you revert LVTW2's addition of updated data? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir I assume this is one of socket puppet accounts created by User:Shark2433086, whom frequently targeted on South Asian-related topics. I used to leave a message to the User after the same behaviour conducted at the first time.[6] LVTW2 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir I thought it was outdated data my mistake

2021 IMF Nominal GDP of Pakistan, $286,340 million, again where's the source for that?

The "IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2021" did not give a Nominal GDP figure for Pakistan in 2021, at least in terms of the relatively stable American dollar. The Nominal GDP figure is however given in American dollars for 2019 and 2020, and not only are they lower than 286 billion 340 million dollars, at 276 billon and 942 million dollars in 2019 and 261 billon and 726 million dollars in 2020, they shows a declining trend year on year, going back to 2018, see here. Where is the source for the 286 billion dollar figure currently quoted for Pakistan in that IMF dataset, and if there really is a source why isn't it highlighted in the table somewhere relevant so that it can be then checked up on for its reliability?

Why not just put in the 2020 figure for Pakistan in the table, as has already been done for Lebanon? There is a reliable source for the 2020 figure for Pakistan in the IMF World Economic Outlook Database published in October 2021.

See - https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/October/weo-report?c=564,&s=NGDPD,&sy=2018&ey=2022&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.234.69 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

2020 numbers are all that's available from the IMF. I've edited the table accordingly. (source) EvergreenFir (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

European Union data

I think that, considering its economic role and importance, it should be a good thing to add the EU data back. Leom 1899 (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Bommbass (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Has anything changed since the last RfC? M.Bitton (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, nothing has changed since the last RIC which was inconclusive. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

Hey Taiwan is not recognized as country . The GDP list should not including Taiwan. 79.179.68.202 (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Zippybonzo | talk 16:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Prior consensus has decided that Taiwan is to be referred to as a country. The RfC (Request for comment) page on which this decision was made can be found here. Please establish the consensus on Talk page:Taiwan if you dispute the previous decision, otherwise any change to the application to refer to Taiwan as a state, island, province of China, or other definition would be reverted. 118.163.139.3 (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit request on Pakistan economy

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2348208/6th-census-results-get-official-nod-after-five-year-gap As explained in this article by tribune.com.pk which is one of the best and most authentic news sites from pakistan, the governing council of pakistan has come to the conclusion and has verified that "The size of the economy in dollar terms has jumped to $347 billion -- estimated at Rs64 trillion by June this year in rupee term. At $347 billion, Pakistan’s standing among world economies has improved to 35th -- below Denmark, which has a $355 billion worth of economy size." This change has been made in the page about the economy of Pakistan, however it has not been made in the page about pakistan and on this list. I have requested a change on that page about pakistan and with all due to respect to all the editors, I humbly request the editors to make this change in this list, in Accordance with the official numbers published by the government of pakistan. شکریہ Mujahid Sons (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The list is based on IMF/World Bank/UN data, using this source would render the list inconsistent. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are we using projections for the IMF data?

We are not even through the second quarter of FY 2022. These are simply projections and tend to differ quite a bit from the actual estimates that are published later. I don't see why it can't be updated once the estimates for 2022 are published in the April 2023 Outlook. There are projections all the way up to 2027 in the April 2022 Outlook - just as there is no reason to update everything to the 2027 projections, there is no reason to use the 2022 projections. Seems to be the most reasonable to keep the data with the published estimates and in this case, with the 2021 estimates. Seems like that has been the practice with previous years' estimates as well. Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qwertyasdf0192363: To be honest, I take no definite position regarding which year of database to be adopted in the table, since no established criterion for the list decided by any prior consensus allowing the editors to comply, it seems to be a convention to aped at every two seasons when a new IMF outlook database released, in which I believe the datas presenting in 2022 were relatively credible since it had covered the entire statistic from the latter half of 2021 to the first season this year, the rest of projections shown after 2022 are often extrapolation based on estimations from that year as well, this is why some politically unstable countries such as Afghanistan and Ukraine, their estimates in 2021 were still applicable in the 2022 report as those figures were still predictable with valid information to the IMF. Also, the IMF report itself irregularly adjusted the past figures even for datas within 2 to 5 years mainly because of currency value changed or inflation, so it does not always remain consistency for us including myself to determine which part of data is "projection" or "real data", at this situation we can rely is to use the most recent estimates as primary source. By proving my points, you can compare the previous publications of the report from previous years with the one released this month. For example, Iran or Saudi Arabia, in which their figures had no consistency over the estimates in the past 5 years. The only thing I can sustain is to adopt the most recent fiscal year and apply to every entries. LVTW2 (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

India's GDP is officially higher then The GDP of the United Kingdom, so why is India lower?

India and The United Kingdom must switch places. R007 Carrot (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If you provide reliable sources than your request will be accepted. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done : Your opinion contadicted with the given sourced figures. Sneha04 ^💬 06:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Where is the table?

Hey can you make new table of 10 largest economies by GDP 2022?(the picture that used to be above?) Tamar274 (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you make new picture for 2022 of 10 largest economies? Tamar274 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

? Tamar274 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Later: you can place a request hereSneha04 ^💬 06:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan GDP NOMINAL Rank

Pakistan is on 35th place by Nominal GDP. Please Correct it 39.52.154.85 (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done : Your opinion contadicted with the given sourced figures. Sneha04 ^💬 07:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan Nominal GDP stands at 347 billion US dollars. Please update this list HaroonBotanist (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Correction of GDP nominal figures

Pakistan GDP nominal is 347 billion us dollars. The figure mentioned here is wrong. HaroonBotanist (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done : It is done as per citated source. Sneha04 ^💬 07:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Mistake in the subregion of Mexico

Mexico is located in North America, not Central America. Corroborate information here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/North_America — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabnotred (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sneha04 ^💬 08:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Add one more row for World GDP from IMF

The data is available here (Analytical Group): https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.99.46.27 (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sneha04 ^💬 06:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

He referred to IMF, yet mod asked for reliable source, smh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.99.39.129 (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

IRANS GDP

I don't think that the nominal gdp of Iran has become 1700 billion dollars so quickly 27.34.104.68 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I verified that number with the source and it is correct. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

See my comment above in the previous thread. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Iran GDP data appears incorrect

In the table The World Bank has Iran's GDP in 2020 at $203 billion while the United Nations has Iran's GDP in 2020 at $939 billion. That is a fantastically large discrepancy. The table also has the IMF listing Iran's GDP in 2021 as $1081 billion. I looked at the IMF raw data, and it is probably $181 billion, which is a far more believable number. MetaplecticGroup (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Also see this. Segaton (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done : All data in the table are provided as per the citation. Please don't pose original research. Sneha04 ^💬 07:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand we have to list what's published, but there is no way the IMF's GDP for Iran is correct, as it even contradicts their own data for GDP growth. See my other post for more detailed sourcing. If anyone can find out more of what's going on, please help out. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This is due to the IMF using the "official" rial-USD exchange rate, but due to current inflationary pressures, the "real" exchange rate is much lower, causing a miscalculation of Iran's GDP

In shorter terms, the actual exchange rate has fluctuated significantly with the US sanctions imposed, but the "official" exchange rate hasn't changed. 104.175.216.215 (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

The GDP estimation is based on an IMF miscalculation based on the "official" rial-USD exchange rate. The GDP actually shrunk quite significantly in the past 3 years due to a collapse of the rial and domestic inflation within Iran, however the "official" exchange rate has not changed. The GDP sources need to be updated or it risks misinforming a lot of people.

Here is a link that explains this in greater detail (although the URL is old) https://old.iranintl.com/en/world/world-bank-estimate-shows-irans-economy-halved-2017 104.175.216.215 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

We take no presupposition on any adopted data in the list, those database are compiled by the 2022 IMF report, and Wiki editors merely uploaded those datas to put on view for referencing purpose. Regardless of whether you agree, this is not our mission to decide the accuracy of those datas, as all listing contents are secondary data in correspondence with the original source. If you have issue regarding the IMF estimates, you should question the organisation directly. This is why other comparative sources from the UN and WB were also listed here for showing discrepancy. [7] LVTW2 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2022

Tanzania's GDP is not correct. There is someone who has swapped Somalia for Tanzania. MWAMNYETO (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@MWAMNYETO: According to which source? M.Bitton (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done : It is not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LVTW2 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

TURKEY

Turkey is on the Asia and Europe. When a ranking be made in Europe, generally Turkey is included in. Many asian countries think Turkey is european country. Turkey national football team play in UEFA, Turkey participated Eurovision since 1975 and membership of EUROPOL and ERASMUS.

I supposed Turkey's location "Europe" instead of Asia. 188.119.61.209 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

TURKEY'S LOCATION

Turkey is on the Asia and Europe. When a ranking be made in Europe, generally Turkey is included in. Acording to many asian countries, Turkey is european country. Turkey national football team play in UEFA, Turkey participated Eurovision since 1975 and membership of EUROPOL and ERASMUS.

I am supporting that writing Turkey's location "Europe" instead of Asia. 188.119.61.209 (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You do realize only 3% of Turkey's landmass is in Europe, right? However, I agree that there are some inconsistencies in terms of the geographic classification of countries. For instance, Cyprus is geographically located completely in West Asia but is classified as Europe. While Armenia is also in West Asia but classified as Asia. This makes no sense. The three Caucasus countries, Cyprus, and Turkey should either be in Asia or Europe rather then picking and choosing which ones go where. Perhaps deferring to a geopolitical definition would be better in this case. These five countries are members of the Council of Europe which classifies these states as "European", so if you are going to switch Turkey, the others should be switched to maintain a degree of consistency. Archives908 (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The current geographic classifications were followed by the United Nations geoscheme, the geoscheme is used as a criteria to resolve disagreements like this. We do not take personal point of view as the norm but universal accepted standard is adopted. LVTW2 (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with LVTW2's comment. The United Nations geoscheme has been widely used as a neutral resolution for disagreements involving geographical classifications. We can insert notes stating that Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are transcontinental countries and Armenia and Cyprus are considered European countries in political/cultural geography to keep everyone happy. Vic Park (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Good idea, Vic Park. Are you taking the initiative implementing that? Much appreciated, Archives908 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Archives908. I reckon we should follow a standard practice so people don't waste time on the Internet arguing about some insignificant issues. Vic Park (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Turkey is Europe (Economically)

Economically and politically Turkey is in European group. Turkey is an EU Custom Union member.

If you say geography then put Russia on Asia. 46.155.206.159 (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done : Case resolved. Please refer to the previous response, no futher new discussion regarding the same issue would be held. LVTW2 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2022 (2)

{{ GDP nominal of Pakistan is 383 billion USD. Source is provided below. |answered=no}} The GDP nominal of Pakistan is 383 billion USD according to Economic Survey of Pakistan 2021-22 which puts Pakistan in higher ranking. Please modify the figures.

https://www.finance.gov.pk/survey_2022.html

HaroonBotanist (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2022

Please check the data for iran's gdp. It must be mistaken! Thanks 90.186.51.248 (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The data is what is provided on the linked source. It has not been inserted incorrectly. See this link from the citation. Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not in a position to challenge the original source, as displayed by the IMF report, the figure for Iran in the list is in correspondence with the one given by the report. If you doubt the accuracy of the data, you should file your inquiry to the organisation directly, which is the IMF. LVTW2 (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2022 (3)

Dear sir, according to Economic Survey of Pakistan 2021-22 the GDP nominal of Pakistan is 383 billion USD. It is requested to modify the figures. I will be thankful to you.

I have provided the sources below

https://www.finance.gov.pk/survey_2022.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/tribune.com.pk/story/2357283/with-6-growth-rate-pakistans-economic-size-jumps-to-383-billion%3famp=1 HaroonBotanist (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done : I am afraid that the national statistics are not accepted. First of all we have the very practical thing for such data not really being comparable with the rest, there can be significant variations with the primary sources that will inevitably be exacerbated when calculated by a third party. Also, the adoption of national statistic has a conflict of interest and an incentive to inflate the figure and there is enough ambiguity about what data is used to compile the estimations. Therefore, primarily only three major sources are adopted. In case of any dispute of the data, the primary sources, which are the IMF, UN, and World Bank, should prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LVTW2 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Nominal GDP of Pakistan

Please update the recent Data of Nominal GDP regarding Pakistan. GDP nominal of Pakistan is 347 billion US dollars. HaroonBotanist (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Where exactly does that 347 billion dollar figure come from, because it doesn't appear to be anywhere in the IMF Database that is quoted for it, and used in this Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.224.191 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done : It is done according to citated source. Sneha04 ^💬 07:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan's GDP Nominal has been updated as $383 billion. These are official numbers from Government of Pakistan Finance Division. These numbers came out recently in Pakistan Economic Survey published a week ago. Please update the numbers GDP Nominal as $383 Billion, Per Capita Income $1798 Source https://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapter_22/Highlights.pdf Page 7 SecureEdits444 (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022

Hi there. I wish to edit the List of Countries by GDP Nominal Page to update GDP Figures of some countries in the table SecureEdits444 (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The purpose of an edit request is to request an edit to a page in a "Change X to Y" format, not to request the ability to edit said page. Please provide the suggested changes in a "Change X to Y" format and re-open the edit request. Aidan9382 _(talk) 11:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan Nominal GDP Official Numbers are now $383 Billion from $347 billion in 2021-2022. Needs to be updated Source https://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapter_22/Highlights.pdf Page 7 SecureEdits444 (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan GDP change

As per 2022, Pakistan's Gross Domestic Product is 401 Billion USD with the GDP growth of 5.2%. 110.39.217.205 (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Update the map

A lot of the article uses 2022 figures, meanwhile the map uses 2019 figures despite the fact that the main source for the map (the IMF) has provided 2022 figures (given in the main article). Changing the map to use the more recent numbers (2022) will make it more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Urjit (talk • contribs) 09:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan

Pakistan GDP 270-280 billion USD in 2018-19, In 2019-20 Pakistan GDP was 347 billion USD and in 2020-21 was 383 billion USD and Now in 2022 GDP is 418 billion USD 203.101.165.202 (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Update All Countries GDP

GDP of All Countries You Are showing old one please update it. 49.36.212.55 (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yaa I am Also Waiting For update. Ayush Jain2.0 (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

GDP (unsigned)

About IRAN, there is an unbeleivable mistake: Today 19 July 2022, Dollar to IRR rate is 320000 but it is been considered it as 42000 in the report. It means iran GDP is almost 8 times smaller; by dividing 1426300M to 8 we get 178287M. This means Iran rank is 54 or 55 not 14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.196.146.214 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This is addressed above. Our List of countries by GDP (nominal) sorts by IMF data (for which nominal GDP is converted from local currency to USD via the official exchange rate instead of market) by default, which doesn't mean we have to use it here, but it is why we do so currently. You can get sort the list article to get Iran's rank by World Bank numbers, which is calculated using market exchange rates, or you can compare them by PPP for which the numbers are more consistent. All numbers in the article do have to be updated with current data, however. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

Pakistan's GDP in 2022 is $383 billion. Source: https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/pakistan-logs-6-growth-in-fy22-economy-s-size-jumps-to-383-billion-122052000063_1.html#:~:text=WEF%202022-,Pakistan%20logs%206%25%20growth%20in%20FY22%2C%20economy's,size%20jumps%20to%20%24383%20billion

Please update 39.35.200.183 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The tables use data from IMF, World Bank, and UN only EvergreenFir (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Update WorldBank GDP 2021 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true&year_high_desc=true Akodamoke (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

European union ranking

The EU is not a country so why is it ranked? There should be no EU ranking because it is not a country… And this shows an incorrect ranking for the rest of the countries Tamar274 (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Look at the GDP PPP table it’s how it should look Tamar274 (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. Brainiac242 (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"The EU is not a country so why is it ranked? There should be no EU ranking because it is not a country… "

→ Because sources ranked it. Additionally, if EU is not a country, it has a specific status and is an integrated market, known as an union in international treaties and as a bloc by native English speaker. Also, the EU is a WTO member. For this reason it might not be correct to not have a single word for the EU on this page.

"And this shows an incorrect ranking for the rest of the countries"

→ Such ranking issue does not appear on "List of countries by GDP (PPP)" page when you sort according to one of the three lists. Might be because they use the |-{{srn total}}|- style="background:#e6e6e6"? or be because the blocs appear in the same rank in the three lists?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8425:642:D701:BF55:9F65:2A1C:85EB (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC) 

Taiwan

Taiwan is not defined as a country by the United Nations and is not a member of it. There should be no ranking for Taiwan because it is not an independent country (as of 2022) by the United Nations. Fun71528 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"Taiwan is not defined as a country by the United Nations and is not a member of it."

• From an international point of view, Taïwan is a sensitive topic because status (or history) of this island is not understood the same way by various parties; for instance it is not understood the same way on the island and in mainland China. This is explained in ore details in One China and Political status of Taiwan pages. As you might know, some/any party would be willing to engage in war or military operations on such issue, and a status quo might be a way to avoid such a war. Obviously, if the issue is not solved at international level, it is unclear how wikipedia could solve it.
• From a wikipedia point of view, if Taiwan is not a country, it might be a territory, which is the title of the column "country/territory". Also, the specific status of that island might be documented in a footnote, for instance with a link to another page.

"There should be no ranking for Taiwan because it is not an independent country (as of 2022) by the United Nations."

• →Same response that for the EU → Because wikipedia follows the referenced sources, wikipedia approach is that same level of information should be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8425:642:D701:BF55:9F65:2A1C:85EB (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

But Taiwan is not defined as an independent country. No world body recognizes it as a country so why is it ranked? Fun71528 (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The rating is only for countries recognized by the UN and other independent bodies. So why is Taiwan also included? She shouldn't in my opinion. Fun71528 (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Prior consensus has clearly decided that Taiwan is to be referred to as a country.

The RfC (Request for comment) page on which this decision was made can be found here. Please establish the consensus on Talk page:Taiwan if you dispute about the previous decision, otherwise any change to the application to refer to Taiwan as a state, island, province of China, or other definition would be reverted. Besides, the list does not set any criteria for including "UN member states" only as you claimed, a bunch of dependencies or overseas territories were also among the list. It seems to be your personal opinion rather than a Wikipedia regulation.

Leave your political debate on the proper site (Talk:Taiwan) if you continue to disagree the previous consensus. Not in the non-related topic as List of countries by GDP (nominal). The list is hereby shown for economic topic. LVTW2 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

World bank data 2021

The world bank has updated number for 2021 GDP. Please update.

Also, IMF 2022 are projections. Please use 2021 numbers. Gzarrillo (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Bangladesh nominal gdp

2021 it was 416 billion so in 2022 it must have increased. Correct me if I’m wrong. 2A00:23C6:7E2E:9501:952A:590F:605:7A4D (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2022

Kindly check the list. India ranks 6th in nominal GDP for 2021-22 103.42.75.241 (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The rankings are by the IMF WEO report (reference #1 will always download just the current nominal GDP (in USD) of all countries from the IMF) updated July 2022, which I just double-checked now. India is #5. Of course these are projections because GDP data is delayed by a fiscal year at minimum (and the fiscal year is different for each country, so the point at which comparative data for all countries can no longer be considered at least somewhat based on projections (which from my understanding are pretty accurate unless the country's economy is in freefall) is 2020-2021ish, and the World Bank comparative data of course releases on that timetable. India's accounting year shifted by 3 months to April-March in 2021 (so FY 2020-2021 was only 9 months), but it's been a year since then and it's been months since the 2021-22 numbers came in so I don't see how you're getting this. The other top countries have different fiscal years but the UK is March-February so they wouldn't have posted some new GDP numbers, and Germany usually releases their numbers in August but has not yet published them afaik. From the IMF reports in 2021, India was 6th behind the UK, but that was the same process then as it is now. If you want to track when precisely India overtook the UK, that would require an independent study of its own, as GDP data is not that fine-grained (and you wouldn't use nominal GDP in USD to calculate it either -- you'd likely just want to use some open-access GDP growth model for each country you're comparing to get a rough guess -- I imagine the IMF's models are not open (and that report overviews forecasting not interpolation).) SamuelRiv (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

Please change the flag of Afghanistan to the national and internationally recognized flag, Afghanistan has been occupied by a neighbor country and soon will have our freedom back. This is not our flag. 2603:9001:2A00:3417:12B4:37A:3F32:4DA5 (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Iran's GDP

What happened to Iran? Their GDP doesn't look right:

2020 World Bank figure: USD 203,471 million

2020 UN figure: USD 939,316 million

2022 IMF figure: USD 1,739,012 million

Why are these figures wildly different? All the other countries' figures are pretty stable. For a big country like Iran, their figures shouldn't fluctuate a lot. Iran's GDP is now similar to economic powerhouses South Korea and Australia, higher than Spain and Mexico. Is this correct? What happened to them? Is everyone in Iran making big money selling black market oil in 2022? Someone with inside knowledge please clarify. Thanks. 2001:8003:9008:1301:8592:BEE9:E345:6E4F (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done : Again, Wikipedia is merely a platform shown as secondary source to be put on view, not in a position to question the primary source, as displayed by the 2022 IMF report, the figure for Iran in the list is exactly the same as the one given by the report. If you doubt the accuracy of the data, you should file your inquiry to the organisation directly, which is the IMF. LVTW2 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This is down to the exchange rate used, Iran has three different exchange rates, the lowest of which is an "official" rate that is much lower than the market rate.

Inflation since 2018 has been running at 30-40% annually. Despite this the official exchange rate has remained fixed at 1 USD = 42,000 since 2018, while the market rate has increased to 320,000.

So what you seeing in this is basically the GDP increasing in Iranian rial, due to massive inflation, but being converted into USD for the IMF statistics at a largely notional "official" exchange rate. It's definitely anomalous. The World Bank disregards official exchange rates for countries where it's not the real exchange rate, hence the (much) lower, but more realistic, figure.

If you look at the IMF's real GDP growth figures from Iran, where they put the real GDP growth rate over the last 5 years at between -2.3 and +4%, it's obviously impossible that the GDP has grown that amount in real terms in the last few years, and it hasn't.

The above explanation as synthesis or my own interpretation is unsuitable for inclusion in the article but it might provide some pointers if someone wanted to go find a source as to the discrepancy. It's obviously wrong, but Wikipedia needs an external source saying this.

This is one article I found that states the IMF is using the official rate and the World Bank the market rate. Note IranIntl is very much an "anti-Iran" source, sponsored by Saudi Arabia. So not sure it would be suitable. But in this case, it probably is right.

Both IMF and the World Bank updated their estimations in late 2021 about Iran’s nominal GDP, based on the “current prices” (with measuring inflation). IMF’s calculation says Iran’s nominal GDP, based on the low “official” USD rate (42,000) has almost doubled since 2017 and reached about $835 billion in 2020, but the World Bank says it declined from $445 billion in 2017 to $203 billion in 2020, based on the USD rate at Iran’s open currency market.

Here's a 2021 Reuters article which touches on the forex issue and makes clear that even when the IMF was projecting negative real GDP growth it has also been showing a massive increase in USD terms:

We expect the Iranian economy will turn into positive growth this year and next year," Jihad Azour, director of the IMF's Middle East and Central Asia Department, told Reuters. The IMF had estimated in October last year Iran's economy would shrink by 5% in 2020 but has revised upwards its estimate to a 1.5% growth in 2020 and a 2.5% growth this year, it said in its World Economic Outlook report last week. "Going forward it’s important to start dealing with some of the weaknesses that exist in the economy," Azour said. "To address the issue of inflation it’s important to address the issue of the multiple currency regime that exists in Iran, and this is something that would help not only address inflation but also improve the overall macroeconomic stability." The Iranian rial official rate is set at 42,000 to the U.S. dollar, but its market rate stood at around 250,000 against the dollar last week, according to foreign exchange website Bonbast.com.

I'm confident this is the issue, but for Wikipedia, you'd need a source that comes out and says it rather than this synthesis. Blorg (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The discrepancy between the official and market exchange rates does appear to explain most if not all of variation between the IMF and WB/common sense. Others have discussed it at Economy of Iran. Per IMF notes: GDP in current prices in U.S. dollars is calculated by using the official exchange rate [42000:1] of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI). Note also that the PPP source the IMF uses (ICP) also uses official exchange rates in its calculations, though it also does not have official cooperation with Iran so it has to interpolate a lot (apparently it's relatively accurate). But the good news, @Blorg:, is I found (I think) an RS: Kazemzadeh, Masoud (2022-05-09). The Iran National Front and the Struggle for Democracy: 1949–Present. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. pp. 134–140. ISBN 9783110782158. Retrieved 2022-06-27. Looking at the market exchange rate of Iran's national currency, the rial, would be a better way to capture the decline of Iran's economy. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion here between nominal and PPP GDP. The Iranian nominal GDP figure looks wildly incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaplecticGroup (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia and Canada Gdp is correct?

Verify the data. 93.32.53.199 (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

US nominal gdp: $24.88T China nominal gdp: $19.1T Bangladesh nominal: $426B Vijendra Bhakal (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 3mi1y (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Map

Indian map isn't the correct one. 59.91.81.28 (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

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.

On a separate subject, why does this list even need a continental breakdown? Why can't we just list these countries as is. All of this seems like a political statement and definitely not neutral. 2600:1700:20:1D80:A460:1100:CE8B:3434 (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done except cyprus is asian here Aaron Liu (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022

Please add the ranking numbers for the World Bank and the UN. Right now the ranking number is the one of the IMF only, but there are three lists in this page, not one. So for example Iran is 11th on the IMF list but I cannot tell where it is on the Word Bank list and it's uncomfortable to count all the way down.Barjimoa (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Aoidh (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you think about it?Barjimoa (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The ranking numbers are added automatically when you sort the list. The table is sortable by any of the columns/sources (check the column header), you don't need to count. Dhyana b (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Dhyana b (talk), I can't believe i never noticed it all this time on wikipedia haha.Barjimoa (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! :D Dhyana b (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Eurozone

It's not exactly only this but the euro-dolar exchange has been in a constant up and down and I feel like the eurozone GDP was in this article like when the euro were about 0,98€, I don't think predictions should be putted, why don't put the GDP of 2021 since that is the only one we know for sure? 37.11.33.211 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The IMF reports are updated every 6 months and the whole point of including this source, is to have the latest available info on the matter. There will be new values very soon anyway, in April. -- Dhyana b (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Remove European Union from the list

European Union should not be in the list which is dedicated to countries. Without any consensus, the user User talk:Dhyana b add this to the list. I request somebody to remove European Union from the list with which if this is to be added, it should discussed first. Greensidebray (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no EU GDP data on the UN source. The data listed on the wiki page doesn't have a valid source. Please remove EU from the table. There is no source for the EU GDP data on UN source. I also agree that EU should be completely removed from the table. This page is about countries, not organisations. There is no consensus whatsoever on adding EU to this list.124.246.107.159 (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

All three sources include data for Europe including the UN source (select Europe). Our page for the EU describes it as "a supranational political and economic union" that has "often been described as a sui generis political entity (without precedent or comparison) combining the characteristics of both a federation and a confederation" so describing it as an organization is inaccurate. Clearly the level of integration is not the same as for the United States but the essential structure is also not dissimilar. Personally I see no harm in including the data, unranked. Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not EU should be on the GDP table is an old issue. We have been debating this for years and there had never been any sort of consensus on that. It is totally against Wiki rules to include EU in this GDP table. EU must be removed from the GDP table. There will never be agreement or consensus on EU being included in this. EU is being included in the face of strong disagreement and opposition and this had been debated on this page many many times. This is completely and totally against WIKI rules.124.246.123.115 (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you are obsessively repeating a nursery rhyme. It seems to me that there is a consensus and sources and facts. Please don't talk randomly about (supposed) Wikipedia rules. Lone Internaut (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't notify me of these messages, which is annoying. The EU is more than a free-trade organization and has many attributes associated with independent nations. Including it in the list does not contravene any 'Wiki rules' (that's ridiculous), as Wikipedia is an informal online encyclopedia dedicated to providing anyone with complex, comprehensive information on virtually all topics, for free -- this information about the EU is relevant to many people visiting this page, for comparison purposes. As long as it is not included in the ranking, and its status is explained, there is absolutely no problem listing it in the table.

To me, it feels like such a strong emotional reaction (to it) rather comes from personal political stances about/against this entity & has nothing to do with any "rules". Please don't politicize Wikipedia. -- Dhyana b (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, there should be consistency with the related pages: List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita and List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. Dhyana b (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

All of these arguments have been repeated before, there's no consensus for the EU's inclusion. I personally don't think it should be listed because it is not a country and whether the EU is "more than a free-trade organization and has many attributes associated with independent nations" is in itself a political call."

Now you could say we make that call about other inclusions but actually we don't, if you look at the IMF source data you'll see that all of the other inclusions are listed on the same spreadsheet. The EU is from a separate spreadsheet and manually added to the first set of data. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I see no harm including data for the EU, not necessarily in the table. The data is useful, that's why most sources go to the trouble of producing it. The minimum here ought to be an explanatory paragraph somewhere about the EU and its data. At the very least it might prevent this matter coming up for discussion so frequently. Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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) 09:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

So what if it doesn't have a unified currency? That is completely irrelevant. Dhyana b (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I said what I think about this here. It is baffling that we still need to discuss this and show time and time again why the EU has to be on this list, especially about a pure economic matter. I mean, it's economics and it's the EU... more hand in hand than that. Lone Internaut (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

China has officially released economic data for 2022

At 10:00 on January 17, 2023 (Beijing time), China released its economic data for 2022. In 2022, China's GDP will be 1210207 billion yuan (179927 billion US dollars in US dollar terms), an actual increase of 3%, please update in time!全年国内生产总值1210207亿元，同比增长3.0%-今日头条 (toutiao.com) 李双能 (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Estimates or projections?

2022 IMF figures posted in this page are future projections published before the end of the year 2022. Other figures from World Bank and United Nations are based on actual past results for completed years. The way data are shown is confusing as both aren't differentiated.

I believe we should rather present IMF data as "projections", not "estimates". And the table should rather be ranked according to data from the most recent completed year, which still means 2021. Metropolitan (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The IMF says estimate for the current year (even if it isn't over yet), and projections for the next year. But yes, it's a bit misleading. Although, in reality, all of these figures, from any of the bodies, are 'estimates'. GDP isn't really objective: any given figure is an estimate based on model. That's why GDP figures from different bodies usually vary and rarely align. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve said it before. The first column cannot be projected figures, use 2021 for IMF. Same as the others. Please use final figures instead of projections. And world bank updated their 2021 numbers, there are multiple changes. Gzarrillo (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please revise gdp data from world bank. And new imf projections are available since someone here likes to rank based on projections Gzarrillo (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Iran GDP

The nominal GDP for Iran is way off. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=IR Opje1904 (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Panama had a GDP of 76.5 Billions in 2022

the GDP of Panama for 2022 is 76.5 Billions of dollars. our central staditic intute, the "INEC" will change the parameters of prices, because we was using the constant prices of 2007 to calculate the Growth per year. now we gonna use the constat prices of 2017. plus to this Panama have a huge informal economy at least 44% Felix.j.najera (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.laestrella.com.pa/economia/230209/incremento-pib-permite-margen-mayor Felix.j.najera (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: numbers in the article come from specific sources, and the numbers given match what the sources gave. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Statistics of 2023

Anyone knows if the first statistics of 2023 are available to update the list? Netherlands nominal GDP is more than one trillion. Dennis1989 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Gdp ranking of Bangladesh

Gdp of Bangladesh now Stand on $525 billion now they are 29th Largest economy on the World DeNeroAl (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2023

I would like to change of most countries as they are outdated, India's GDP for example, is currently 3.93 trillion USD, but, it shows India's GDP as 3.47 trillion USD, and also the PPPs are out dated. 183.82.205.249 (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Remember that this article lists nominal GDP, not accounting for PPP. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

IMF April 2023 update

Please update the IMF figures per the latest report released today 04/11/2023. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD Gzarrillo (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Dhyana b (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2023

Yadollah.Yad (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC) From which article did you find Iran's (nominal) GDP? In 2022, this amount was 1.7 trillion dollars And in 2023 this amount has decreased to 0.367 trillion dollars?

Previously, IMF was relying on Iran's official conversion rate (42,000 IRR / $1 USD) which does not describe the reality of their economy's performance. Currently, IMF is relying on the actual exchange rate (427,000 IRR/ $1 USD) the way they should have long time ago.

The current GDP is the correct and most accurate one. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks ridiculous :)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Why there is no gdp list for year 2022?

Why there is no gdp list for year 2022? 142.154.11.25 (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the most reliable source?

Without having shirts, with total honesty, what is the most RELIABLE source to measure GDP, the Global Bank, the I.M.F or the United Nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:10A6:19:B8D3:A986:2850:F586:71BD (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Geographical categorisations

Why are these wobbly in the table list> Under what criteria is Azerbaijan "Asian" whereas Georgia is "European" for example. Both countries, like Turkey and Kazakhstan have territory on the Asian and European continents. France has territory all over the place and is not purely European for one, just like the Netherlands and Spain, for further examples. 78.182.145.165 (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Georgia was mislabeled (it is in the United Nations geoscheme for Asia, not in the United Nations geoscheme for Europe, but I just corrected it. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

India's GDP has crossed 4 trillion dollars mark

If many Indian news sites are to be believed then India's GDP has crossed the 4 trillion dollars mark. If it's not a fake news then this should be updated here. 203.81.242.243 (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2024

59.178.103.95 (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I MADE AN REQUEST BECAUSE HERE THE GDP OF INDIA IS SHOWING 3.73 TRILLION USD BUT ITS ACTUALLY 4.105 TRILLION USD PLEASE MAKE SURE TO EDIT THIS MISTAKE..

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2024

The GDP for India on the list does not match the graph. The EU is one space too low, it should be in between China and the U.S. Stellarisstaria (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

What's up with Cuba?

What's up with Cuba. The Economy of Cuba article claims that they are the 19th country by nominal which is extremely extremely surprising because nominal is just raw stats without being shifted by PPP or per capital. And this article seems to have discrepancies because one source is claiming around 175000 million which other other one says 650,000 million. Alexysun (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"List of Countries By GDP (nominal" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of Countries By GDP (nominal 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 February 14 § List of Countries By GDP (nominal until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of the European Union in the list

There seems to be a disagreement regarding the inclusion of the EU into the list of countries. Recently it has been repeatedly added and removed. The note regarding its inclusion may not be presenting a convincing argument why the EU is included while e.g. ASEAN, Mercosur, AU etc are not (these actually do have flag, anthem and/or parliamentary-like assembly). Consider changing original note 4 text:

The EU is included because it is much more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, African Union or Mercosur. It has certain attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, currency (for some members), parliament and other law-making abilities, as well as diplomatic representation and a common foreign and security policy when dealing with external partners. However, because the EU is an organization and not a sovereign state or autonomous territory, it does not receive a ranking in this list.

to a new wording that aims to better explain specific nature of the EU:

The EU is economic and political union of 27 countries having single market with free movement of goods, capital, services and people. The EU has some characteristics of a federation - specific policy areas are governed by permanent supranational EU bodies with legislative, executive and judicial powers where member states have limited ability to legislate on their own or to veto EU decisions. As such the EU has been described as being less than a state but more than an international organization. GDP of the EU is listed in the table under those sources that explicitly provide it, but it does not receive a ranking.

Sources:

Hlavac, Marek, Less than a State, More than an International Organization: The Sui Generis Nature of the European Union (December 2, 2010). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1719308 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1719308

https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/institutions-and-bodies/types-institutions-and-bodies_en https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/division-of-competences-within-the-european-union.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:830A:B000:4600:8CF6:ADE5:FD64:BB80 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion of the EU in this list and not even comparing this with other trade associations. As their own definition states, it is an economic and political union. And while it may have some things that can be similar to a country (and the same can be said of the UN, Red Cross, etc.) they are not a country. There is no EU seat at the UN, which would be one of the defining factors. So please remove because not only it looks weird because it reflects some kind of eurocentrism in Wikipedia, but also now that the other trade unions are mentioned in the comment, this has the potential to have people including all kinds of things in this list. AClassId (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

More to the point, the EU is included because the IMF and WB datasets includes it. (For all the reasons you cite among others.) They are not only RS; they are literally the basis for these economic list articles. We have generally made unrecognized polities not sortable under the same keys as the rest of the table, however, at least in other IMF dataset list articles. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe the EU should be added as it is not a country, would double count European countries and implies that the EU is equivalent to states like the US or China.

There was a RfC, I guess not very recently anymore but relatively so by Wikipedia standards where no consensus for its inclusion was met. Maybe another RfC would be fruitful to see if a consensus for its inclusion is there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)/Archive_9#RfC_about_adding_the_EU_to_the_article 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

In this case perhaps we should add Hong-Kong,Macau and China which they are literally one country, or add USMCA and all other economic unons like EEU etc EU does not have a common currency(several countries still have their own national currency like Sweden, Poland etc), they do not constitute a single political entity-nation and do not share common fiscal policies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.198.236.112 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed along these arguments many times before (please dig through the talk page archives) and such discussion has always led to keeping it in, which is clearly the current consensus. So before removing it please make sure there is a convincing consensus to remove it here (please note I am in favour for keeping it in). Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure we've reached consensus a few times in the past that the EU should be in the list. It seems every year we're doing this dance and the result is always to add the EU. Nonetheless ,I support keeping it in the list.Romdwolf (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was always not to add in EU. This is a page about COUNTRIES. EU is not a country. It doesn't belong here. 124.246.65.237 (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding editing of inappropriate articles

Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. This discussion needs to be re-started without attacking each other. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User 北京555 took the liberty of changing the article without sufficient discussion of the previous classification of countries for ranking. I argue that it should be reverted to the version of the article dated 07:45, 12 March 2024‎‎. Minchuchui (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC) I didn't change anything, I just marked countries and territories, you are a disruptive editor. 北京555 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC) You arbitrarily omitted Taiwan, Kosovo, and Palestine from the rankings, even though IMF data "exists" and the data is "written" in the table. The article clearly states, "states with limited international recognition (such as Kosovo and Taiwan) are included in the list where they appear in the sources." Minchuchui (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC) If you keep editing without reaching a consensus, I'll report you, secondly, I mentioned everything.. 北京555 (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Even though the article clearly states that Taiwan and Kosovo will be ranked based on IMF data, you ignores this and makes inconsistent edits. Minchuchui (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC) It said that Taiwan and Kosovo will be at the table , as they are. 北京555 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC) You need to stop fighting and start focusing on other articles, you have already have made disruptive edits and if you continue I will report you. 北京555 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC) We will take this issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. May I? Minchuchui (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Before that, I will report that you are making disruptive edits, not listening to Wikipedia rules, editing one article in a million times, and not listening to Wikipedia rules. 北京555 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC) There is no problem because Cremastra reverted it to the previous version. Minchuchui (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

New IMF report 2024 available

Please add the new data from IMF 2024 192.193.216.151 (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2024/01/30/world-economic-outlook-update-january-2024 199.67.138.47 (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2024

Update this page as per in accordance with the new IMF data for GDP(Nominal) Aditya lokhandwala (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Closing duplicate request. PianoDan (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2024

Please change the Data for GDP(Nominal) for all countries in Accordance with the new IMF Numbers. Aditya lokhandwala (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done for now: Please provide a source. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Problem with the current version

Hello, in the current table there is a big problem that I corrected in the edit I made a few weeks ago.it’s includes in an incorrect ranking countries and territories that have no information to back them up or that are not members of the IMF and are simply in the wrong ranking and order. Until some time ago the table was in this order but someone changed it.The table used to be like that.

It is important to note that there is no information about Cuba, but it is ranked 63rd, a ranking that is not even close to being true and despite the fact the the IMF doesn’t have any economic data about Cuba. Due to these reasons, on other large sites, for example,Worldomotor arranged the table according to the order I suggested. Countries like Lebanon or Syria for example are in the ranking even though according to the IMF there has been no economic information about them for years. I see no reason to object. I would love for you to give your opinion about my version that was more organized. 北京555 (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you make a good point , in my opinion the older version you made is better than the current one. Qplb191 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright @Cremastra do you agree? 北京555 (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Fernan860 could you please give an third opinion? 北京555 (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the list should meet the same sorting criteria than the article "List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita": Sort according to the first column. If there is no data, according to the second column. And if there is no data either, according to the third column. Remove the rankings of non-IMF members as decided in the article "List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita". And later, check the data of Cuba (and other data maybe) and correct if necessary. Regards. Fernan860 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, This is exactly the edit I proposed and made, it is also important for me to explain that there are countries that are members of the IMF, such as Lebanon or Cuba for example, but do not have economic data for years and ranked in the wrong place, so I marked them as well. 北京555 (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Update

New IMF figures are out,when is it going to be updated? 2A02:9130:80B8:2417:9B5F:594C:CA3C:BDDF (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan rank

taiwan is currently grouped together with poland at rank 21. it looks rather odd, since in no way of counting would taiwan actually be ranked 21st. i think it should either

• not be included within rank 21, and just have an empty, separate ranking field, or
• be within row 22, above belgium, with "22" on the same height as belgium.

similar edits would then need to be done to the other unranked entries. EnTerbury (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Update

Hello should we update the data as of 2025? 北京555 (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Suspecious political motivated edits regarding the recent mess of ranking change

The recent change of ranking convention has been a total mess caused by some IPs from specific country who attempted to hint their political belief at a non-political related topic. @北京555 pursued a one-side claim some entries have no IMF information which should be blanked, but some entries for example such as Taiwan and Kosovo have been listed among the IMF yearbooks for years, were excluded from the ranking due to their partially recognized status, but many non-sovereign entities such as Hongkong and Macau are given a rank, I don't really get the idea about it. This issue has to be resolved by an overall disscussion joint by more eligible editors who can make a coherent body of all GDP-related lists. They all used different instructions of the ranks and it seems a total chaos that does not have a consistent standard. Sheherherhers (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

A few months ago a consensus was reached, as you can see on the discussion page that included a third opinion. 北京555 (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The table is ranked according to the IMF & World Bank, which does not include territories and countries with partial recognition that are not ranked. If the matter is "political" you are welcome to contact the IMF and the World Bank who decided not to mark or generalise these countries. 北京555 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Also as it’s been said above it does not include countries which there is no available up to date economic data such as Syria , Lebanon and Cuba 北京555 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said, the IMF have long included statistical entries for Taiwan, Palestine and KOsovo in the yearbooks, you only delibrately disregard about the information. Sheherherhers (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be your one-side resistence for the ranking instruction change as I didn't really see anyone giving an explicit APPROVAL about your "consensus" and there were only 3 editors involved to your previous discussion, and you claimed that's a consensus?? The version with no blanked ranks have been existed for at least past four years, that shall be you to rise a WP:RfC for general discussion in order to build a consistent standard regarding the renew version, I only reverted it to the accepted version that it used to be. Sheherherhers (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There is another point of concern regarding this matter.

There are a total of 4 Wikipedia pages related to list of countries by gdp.

List of countries by GDP (nominal),

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita,

List of countries by GDP (PPP),

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita.

The problem is that even though all the pages use the data released by the IMF and sort and order the data by that, they treat countries like Taiwan and Kosovo very differently on each page.

On the GDP and PPP per capita pages, Taiwan and Kosovo have a grey background,

while on the GDP per capita and PPP pages, Taiwan and Kosovo have a white background like the other countries.

In former versions, the condition was simply "whether or not there is individual IMF data", regardless of whether the region was a country or not, or whether it was not a limited recognition.

In other words, the condition for a grey background and no ranking number to be displayed was  no IMF data . In that version, countries with individual IMF data, such as Taiwan and Kosovo, were properly ranked, and countries without IMF data, such as North Korea and Syria, had a grey background.

Moreover, the current version of GDP page does not even rank countries that are members of the IMF and do not have limited recognition, such as Sri Lanka and Lebanon.

To resolve this current strange situation, I would like to make a suggestion.

In all four pages of GDP, GDP per capita, PPP, and PPP per capita, the criteria for not ranking numbering is set to  no IMF data .

This is the same state as the previous version.

No matter what conclusion is reached regarding how to number the rankings in this discussion, I hope that the handling on all four pages will be unified. Minchuchui (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You probably just didn't read. It is clearly written that countries marked in gray are countries that are not members of the IMF, with limited recognition, and countries for which there is no up-to-date economic data such as Lebanon or Cuba. A few months ago we talked about this issue and defended the agreement that this is better, in addition to that I brought a third opinion that sided with it. 北京555 (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

For example of a RfC discussion:
Template:Rfc
Talk:Taiwan/Archive_30#RfC:_Taiwan,_"country"_or_"state"

Sheherherhers (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

As we have already said, we reached a consensus that included a third opinion. If you want to change the existing version, you will have to get a new consensus. 北京555 (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If you read the talk page you would know that the page was not like this for four years, for years it was like this and then changed and then once again it was accepted like this, the last consensus received regarding the page was a few months ago, if you want to change it you will need a new consensus, yet does can you specify what you want to change? 北京555 (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine, illegally occupied by "russia", and is colored with different tint, making it look like it's not Ukrainian territory.

Following that logics, you could use diferent tint to occupied Zaprizhia, Kharkiv, Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts. Or the whole country, why bother with such intricacies and nuances? 91.189.20.26 (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

wikipedia editors don't decide what is or isn't legitimate. The reality is just depicted as it is. 0123Qwerty3210 (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)