Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Semi-protection request

Please protect this article from unregistered (IP) user access. The level of "IP-vandalism" has recently increased sharply. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Лъчезар (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

World Economic Outlook

Why does WEO redirect here?DOR (HK) (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Correct data about South Korea (vandalism)

There has been some vandalism in this site. According to the CIA Factbook S.Korea is in the 15th place far below. Somebody has vandalised the chart today.--88.26.57.166 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

CIA list

The CIA and World bank lists are obviously wrong,Brazil is way up and China seems to be missing from them.Who changed it? Fireaxe888 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The World Bank published the 2008 list today (July 1, 2009)

Can someone please update the list: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf 208.79.239.160 (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Alliances

Should other alliances be listed since the EU is listed? Maybe NAFTA. NATO. Heck, we could do western hemisphere, trade wind countries, countries that have the most English speakers, countries that border each other and countries that start with A? There really is no reason to have a trade alliance/organization listed with actual countries other than it makes some people feel better. The question is, where do we draw the line? From my understanding, all the countries in the EU send individual representatives to the UN and also to the Olympic games. They are individual sovereign entities. Not a singular country. While it does offer a reference point for the continent, it does not belong where it is currently placed. Maybe it would be a good project to list GDP by continent or trade organization? Anyway, I have removed the EU from the tables as it does not belong with country data unless we were to widen the overall scope (i.e. not list by country, but by geographic region/organization/alliance.) Neutralis (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. See the talk archive for the consensus and reasoning behind the inclusion of the EU. Poliphile (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit. Please look at the logic applied in the above post. I have read the reasoning concerning the EU and it does not meet the merit of inclusion. The EU is not a country. If we want to include allied bodies in the table, we should expand it greatly and I am willing to do that. However, at this time the EU is still not a country nor does it have a fiscal body that aggregates wealth. Neutralis (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: This is a list of COUNTRIES by GDP. Neutralis (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
NOTE 2: This is my attempt at being Bold. The previous discourse is stagnant and anyone that looks at this article from an outside perspective knows the EU is not a country that should be listed on a list of countries by GDP. There is lots of flutter but when we get down to the data, it is a list of country GDP data. It should remain as such, untouched by political doctrine or motive. Neutralis (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has already been reached; you can't decide to change it because you don’t agree with it. Please read the previous discussions on the talk page. Zarcadia (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate that there has been vigorous discussion on this issue. You can't come to a consensus on something that is factually incorrect. The EU is not a country. This is a list of countries by GDP. Even the opening paragraph says, "This article includes a list of countries of the world sorted by their gross domestic product (GDP)." Neutralis (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

European Union is not a country

The EU is not a country and only provides an arbitrary reference point that is superfluous being the world data is included. If we were to include the EU, we could easily cherry pick other non-nation organizational bodies and add them to the list, but in effect that would further move from the core of the article which is, "List of Countries by GDP." While the EU is an important political body, it does not meet the criteria for list of inclusion on a list of countries, being it is not one. Neutralis (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We've had this discussion. There is nothing "arbitrary" about including the EU on the list, as the sources list the European Union/Eurozone as a distinct entity even when the lists say "list of countries." Might try reading the intro and checking the sources. The CIA, for example, doesn't list NAFTA or the EFTA, so there is no "cherrypicking" here. They do list the EU. If this is an issue for you, you might try lodging a complaint with the CIA. In the end, it fits the criterion as, presumably owing to its sui generis status, the sources choose to list it. Canada Jack (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the sources. This is just simple logic. The EU is not a country and should not be included in the context of list of countries in this wikipedia article. If you are going to include the EU, then the individual countries that make up the EU that are on the list should be removed (even though that is defeating the point of a country list by GDP in the first place.) In the end, you can't have it both ways and keep consistency in the article. When someone looks for a list of countries, they expect to see a list of countries. Throwing an organizational body on to the list for "pride" or whatever reason it is there does not change the fact that it does not belong. If I had a list of population by state (US) and then threw New England on the list, it wouldn't belong as it is not a state but rather a region. The same logic applies here. While the EU is a monetary body bound by treaty, it does not in any way fulfill the definition of a country in the traditional sense (nor does it have individual representatives to the UN, Olympics et al.) Neutralis (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Do not continue to edit war. I see that you've filed an RFC and I welcome that step. But DO NOT make further edits until you've obtained consensus. So far you are the only one to suggest removing the EU from the list. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Here's how wikipedia works, since you've twice now removed information which was the result of a long debate and from which a consensus was reached. Number One: your particular views on what qualifies for inclusion on a list of countries is not the crucial criterion here - the crucial criterion is whether those who make the lists decide to include the data. Which is why we also include data Hong Kong, Jersey and other non-country entities. Because those who made the lists chose to include that data. Even when their lists say "countries," non-country entities are included when they include it. That is the operating premise behind listing the data. Number Two: This is not just my particular view on what should be on the page, as said previously, we've had this debate and the consensus was to reproduce the data as found on the originating lists. So to come in here and declare the page to be "wrong" and make substantial changes without first gaining consensus is, well, not the way things work around here.

Throwing an organizational body on to the list for "pride" or whatever reason it is there does not change the fact that it does not belong. If I had a list of population by state (US) and then threw New England on the list, it wouldn't belong as it is not a state but rather a region. The same logic applies here.

Sounds like the one who is operating from "pride" is you, neutralis, seeking to omit the largest economy in the world for what seems to be a goal to see the United States at number one. But it already is at number one, since the EU/EZ is not numbered. What "fact" is not changed is that the EU is included on lists some of which are called "country" lists. States? They aren't listed, so to apply your reductio ad absurdum argument doesn't work since the sources lack the data. I have speculated before that since the EU is a sui generis entity, the sources themselves see it warrants inclusion as though not a country, it is also not simply a regional trade bloc. And since the EU acts like a nation in many important economic respects - a common currency for most of the bloc, a body-wide trade rules regulator etc. - its inclusion was deemed relevant by those making the lists. Canada Jack (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not for you to presuppose my goals or declare I have an agenda, nor to tell me how wikipedia works...
Anyway, the EU might very well be the largest economy in the world, but it isn't the largest economy in the world on a list by country, because it is not a country. If there was a list of organizational bodies (which the EU is stated as in its main wikipedia article) it would be fine to put the EU on the top of that list.
As for the makeup of the list, it is not for wikipedia to follow the outline documents from whence it derives its data as wikipedia exists for an entirely different purpose. The argument, "The CIA does it this way and thus Wikipedia must follow that mold" does not at all run current to the base operating procedure in this community. We create an article and source the article to supporting documents. We do not take supporting documents and write an article with its vision as a template.
On your last note, while the EU may act like a country in many respects, it is not a country.
In conclusion, this is a straightforward issue that should not be a subject of contention or long debate. This is a list of countries and the EU is not a country. It is that simple. There is no reason for its inclusion. If we want a list with the EU on it, I'd be more than happy to create a wikipedia article, "List of Organizational Bodies by GDP" and stick it right at the top along with NAFTA. Neutralis (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


It is not for you to presuppose my goals or declare I have an agenda, nor to tell me how wikipedia works...

Since you did precisely that - presuppose why the EU was included (and not Hong Kong etc) - one wonders why you doth complain so loudly... As for how wikipedia works, since a) you repeatedly removed content without discussion and b) waded into a discussion for which consensus has previously been reached, it seems you have, in your haste, forgotten how things are normally done around here.

But enough of this snide back and forth. Your points on the status of the EU are good points - and were a large part of the discussion previously held. No one now or then suggests the EU is or was or will be (well maybe) a "country." The discussion turned on whether to include data which seemed to fall outside of the article's definition which was included on the source pages. Since the sources saw fit to include the data, it was decided we should so, with several caveats - that this was mentioned within the introduction and the non-country entities not be ranked.

The argument, "The CIA does it this way and thus Wikipedia must follow that mold" does not at all run current to the base operating procedure in this community. We create an article and source the article to supporting documents. We do not take supporting documents and write an article with its vision as a template.

But its not just the CIA, and this you don't seem to appreciate. Twenty years ago, this would not have been an issue, as the sources wouldn't have made the separate listing. But things have changed, and the EU is now almost universally listed as an entity. If not a country, then often listed aside countries for the purposes of comparison. What I said before about this stands: To remain relevant, wikipedia should reflect the evolving understanding of issues out there and to reflect the information which the sources choose to deem as relevant. It would seem that for a number of reasons, comparisons with the EU are seen as relevant. So, while certain nationalist hackles are raised (on both sides) whether one side seeks to be number one or not, the salient point is the primary sources here see the comparison as important and relevant, quite outside the "trivia" of listing various trading blocs. So, to stick too closely to a dictionary definition as if this overrides any question of relevancy, is to embrace the forest but not the trees.

In conclusion, this is a straightforward issue that should not be a subject of contention or long debate. This is a list of countries and the EU is not a country. It is that simple. There is no reason for its inclusion.

You are right, but the debate has been held, and consensus has already been reached. And that consensus was to include the EU, with the proviso that an intro would mention that non-national entities were included and those entities would not be ranked but placed within the tables by GDP. So, unless others want to re-open the issue, that would be the last word on this issue. Canada Jack (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice what you are saying? The information is wrong, but as it was (informally) decided it must remain as is. And the editors deliberately left out of the lists other country groups mentioned in the sources, for what reason? Weeweew (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As a rule, I agree with Neutralis. The European Union is not a sovereign state and does not meet any other reasonable definition of the word "country". It should not, generally speaking, be assumed that the European Union belongs on any list "of countries" on Wikipedia without good and specific reasons for inclusion. Under no circumstances should it be implied that the European Union is a sovereign state unless such assertion can be demonstrated using a reliable source (such as an EU treaty) - I'm not accusing anyone of this, just stating it in general terms.

But these are single-source lists. It would be strange for us to cite this as the list by the World Bank, or by the IMF, and then exclude one of the entities listed by the World Bank/IMF. It's far easier for all concerned when single-source lists use their sources to determine their inclusion criteria.

So, while generally my view is that the EU and eurozone do not belong on lists of countries, I don't think we should exclude them when we're explicitly reproducing a list from a source that includes them. Pfainuk talk 20:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


I would like to point out to everybody participating in this discussion the fact that of the three sources referenced in this article, Only CIA clearly mentions EU along with "regular" countries.

It seems the IMF data in this article is made up of the combination of two different listings, this one and this one. Only the first one is a proper country list, while the second one is a list of country groups, where the editors of this article considered appropriate to deliberately deselect all country groups but World and European Union, the only ones considered by them worth mentioning, despite the fact the original source considered appropriate to include the other ones. Then, they proceeded to merge the two lists to suit their own personal preference, creating this new definition for the word country, found only in Wikipedia.

Then, the editors kept the same policy for the World Bank reference, choosing to pick European Area from a different section of the table, where some country groups are represented, and again, contrary to the source, decided the only country groups worth mentioning are World and European Area, again, deliberately letting out other country groups considered relevant by the original authors of the reference.

I strongly recommend you to not believe me and verify this yourself. The fact the correct information can be found in the sources is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not just a mere link aggregator, and the way the information is presented in the article is misleading. Do you really believe a child researching this article for schoolwork is going to check the references? The introduction tries to justify this aberration by saying "the sources told me so", but using this criteria the sources also mention South Asia and Middle income country groups. Displaying prominently European Union alone will leave in such a child the impression EU is a country, and this is also no excuse to edit other countries from the list, because EU and World (the last one partially justifiable as a sum of the elements) are the only elements evidently handpicked and misplaced. Weeweew (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The World Bank list lists one and only one aggregate economic group, Weewee. And that single group is the Euro Area (not "European Area", whatever that is). The EFTA, NAFTA, the South American blocs, the Asian blocs ARE NOT MENTIONED. ALL the other groups are regions, not economic associations. Further, the CIA, under the list of "countries," lists The European Union.
The information is NOT "misleading" as the intro quite clearly states: Several economies which are not considered to be countries (world, EU, and some dependent territories) are included in the list because they appear in the sources. And, in case anyone misses it, ALL lists have as #1, the United States of America. The EU/EZ are not ranked. Are children also going to conclude The World is a country? By your logic, they would. But not by the logic of any kid I know. Further, since you seem to be on an anti-EU warpath, should we not exclude Hong Kong as well? It is not a country either, but yet it resides on all three lists as well. Clearly, the sources themselves choose not to be as stringent on their definition of "country" as you insist we should be.
If this debate was being held 200 years ago, I'd have no doubt that Brits would be arguing that the USA should be listed by individual States as the USA is an "aggregate" of States. But, the same argument holds then as now: What those who compile the lists see as a relevant compilation should be what we list, not some arbritrary rule (which is used to exclude what world-wode is seen as a bona fide, though sui generis, economic entity) designed tro exclude relevant comparisons.
That same shoolchild, if seeing the USA so far ahead, would wonder why, increasingly, the EU calls the economic shots and demands concessions, collectively, from places like China, and why the euro is the second most-important currency on the planet if the data was excluded. The listings as reproduced here give that schoolchild a clearer idea why, which is probably why the listmakers list it. Canada Jack (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Canada Jack, it is not possible we are talking about the same document. I'm referring to this one. I have searched it and there are only two matches for "euro": "Europe & Central Asia" and "Euro area". Euro area is mentioned, like the other artificial country groupings found there and omitted here, just as a reference. You are correct, there are no South American or Asian Blocks mentioned, but Euro area is not the same as European Union, and by no means is a country, you said yourself, it is an economic association. And as I already mentioned, the CIA is the only one listing European Union along with countries, and I believe it was also already mentioned in this discussion you cannot combine two different sources (CIA and WB in this case) to make your conclusions, much less to pretend that the reference to Euro area equals to European Union, and that both are a country. Also, you have no right to claim I'm in a anti-EU warpath, the same way nobody has the right to claim you are in a anti-US warpath. The sole non-stringent source, as you call it, possibly claiming EU to be a country is CIA, itself a reason to exclude it as unreliable. IMF has a list of countries which excludes EU, WB list does not claim to be a list of countries, the text at the bottom only reads "economies", very different from country. I couldn't care less about US/EU, I'm only frustrated to see Wikipedia becoming increasingly useless, as articles age and are "adopted" by people strongly misconceived and strongly stubborn.
Why does the authors/editors of the article considered it to be appropriate to search for EU/EZ outside the main reference (in case of IMF) or the main section of the table (in case of WB), and in both cases deliberately exclude other country groups found at the originals? The mentioned dependent territories were included alongside countries in the source, and in case this is a mistake, it is not for Wikipedia to fix this information, otherwise it would be original research. Obviously no one is going to think World is a country, the same cannot be assumed of European Union, which has many government structures similar to a country, and which is very likely to become one in the future. I'm complaining about someone making great leaps of logic to pick information from different locations to support the theory EU already belongs to this article.
I'm not British, this is 2009 and I see no point in your argument. Just to mention an example, US has a single army, which can be mobilized as a single entity, regardless of the State soldiers originally belong to. The only similar thing EU has by now is NATO, which you may know is composed by non-EU countries also, and with individualized armies for each country. EU has an enormous and crescent political and economic strength, but this does not change the fact it is not a country, which is what this article refers to.
That schoolchild may wonder a lot of things, for instance, why does there are many countries which cannot call the shots and still are considered countries, why there are many associations which can call the shots in many instances (NATO,WTO) even not being a country, why not all EU countries adopt the same currency, and why some non-EU do so, who knows? Power itself doesn't determine what a country is, general consensus does, and EU is being considered a country only here. The lists reproduced here are exhibiting manipulated information, so what clear idea can come from this? Why isn't there a "See Also" link for "Organizations who are calling the shots", with NATO, WTO, EU and even, in some instances, UN? Weeweew (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Weeweew: Clearly, you've not looked too closely at the pages in question. The WB lists the euro area. On the wikipedia page, we have, under the WB listings, the euro zone. This is one and the same entity, something I suspect you may not be aware of, or are confused about, as you used the phrase "European Area" earlier. So, your complaints about it not being the European Union are moot as the list has it as "euro zone," which is precisely what is listed on thr WB list. And the euro zone is the only distinct entity on that table. It is no way an "artificial country grouping" as the zone is specifically defined, and, indeed, there is an article on this entity, unlike the others on the page.

So, we have the CIA and the WB specifically listing, to the exclusion of all other aggregate entities, the European Union and the euro zone. The IMF also lists it, though not as exclusively. And, let's be clear here, the CIA doesn't "define" the EU as a country, it states quite plainly that, though nominally a list of countries by GDP, there are non-country entities on the list. IOW, the CIA, and the WB, while saying "country" clearly don't limit the lists to countries. Hong Kong has NEVER been considered a country but, routinely, "country" listings on this and other subjects, routinely list it, without hand-wringing from pedantic critics.

I couldn't care less about US/EU, I'm only frustrated to see Wikipedia becoming increasingly useless, as articles age and are "adopted" by people strongly misconceived and strongly stubborn. I find that an extremely odd statement. How does including the EU make the page "useless"? I'd say having the info makes it very useful - and relevant. If this was a list of countries, period, you've have a point. But its a list of economies, ranked by country, with some data included seen as relevant or in demand by the sources. It's EXTREMELY relevant, given the EU's single bloc, the use of the euro, to have some comparative measure of its economy with other economies. The EU (not Germany or France), enter into trade negotiations with other regions and countries (Canada and the EU are negotiating, for example), and its regulatory structure is as influential as America's.

Why does the authors/editors of the article considered it to be appropriate to search for EU/EZ outside the main reference (in case of IMF) or the main section of the table (in case of WB), and in both cases deliberately exclude other country groups found at the originals? There may be an argument for that in the case of the IMF, but, as I said above, the euro area is the only economic entity listed on the WB page. No other regional entities are listed.

US has a single army, which can be mobilized as a single entity, regardless of the State soldiers originally belong to You are missing the point. No one claims that the EU is a country. However, it is sui generis and while not a country, it is also not simply a trade bloc. Trade blocs generally don't have a parliament and a president. The EU does. As I have reiterated, the sources choose to list it, perhaps for the reason of sui generis, so should we. If the argument is "omit non-countries," then, logically, we'd have to second-guess the sources and start omitting places like Hong Kong.

Why isn't there a "See Also" link for "Organizations who are calling the shots", with NATO, WTO, EU and even, in some instances, UN? Because they aren't on the lists. You seem to miss the point of why I mentioned that - I am simply offering an possible rationale for the SOURCES to have listed the EU/EZ and not other entities. I would speculate that NATO, the UN etc lack the economic cohesion and economic clout of the EU. Why not ask the sources? Canada Jack (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Canada Jack, it seems clear to me both of us strongly believe our opinion on this subject is correct, and that other one's arguments are too weak to change our own position. Unfortunately, I don't have time to keep up with this discussion, so I can only recommend people reading this to read all positions expressed in this page, from both sides, check the sources and reach their own conclusions. Does EU belong to this article, called "List of countries by GDP (nominal)? In an informal poll, there was no consensus, so it seems the information was to be left as it already was (including EU), and this does not necessarily implies this is right (or wrong). Also, Tomeasy suggested to carry to sister articles the position of this one, probably just to keep consistence, not because he is a supporter of this position, but this does not reflect the above mentioned convention of leaving them as they already are. So, I regret to inform I will be forced to leave the discussion in its current state, with my position being to exclude EU from the listings, based on the fact EU is not a country and the reasons given to include it here are debatable, and I will not be able to change this position to reflect new developments in argumentation after the signature date. Weeweew (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. The EU is essentially a kind of economic state. If the EU does not

belong on the lists, then "World" doesn't either, as it's the root economic state, comprising everything. Nor would any other non-national, non-sovereign, or non-state entities either. These lists should mirror the list from each of the three sources, since it's their list. Country does not always or necessarily mean exactly the same as sovereign state, or some of the other legal or international law definitions. It's like the term "terrorism" in that we have no one single universal definition. And there are other ambiguities of inclusion in these lists. For example, what about Ireland—the whole island—not just the Republic of Ireland? What about the members of the British Commonwealth, NATO, NAFTA, Organization of American States, the US territories, and other organizational, economic, regional, geopolitical, ethnic, or continental groupings. Inclusion criteria by the sources are apparently not based on extremely well and totally agreed on definitions, and—as in most issues—there are shades of grey and differences. Wikipedia can't make those inclusion decisions without doing original research or synthesis. The reporting organizations have made them. Note: Came here via RfC. Bottom line: Mirror the lists from the three sources, as they are, which includes the EU. — Becksguy (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Removal. The EU isn't an economic state. It doesn't even have the same currency. --67.8.93.31 (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Include in the same way our sources include the EU/eurozone. BTW, this question was dealt with at length last year in an informal mediation. None of the arguments here appear new to me. Tomeasy T C 01:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Removal. Wikipedia is making a joke of itself trying to redefine reality by vote. The EU is not a country, regardless of the fact the article sources mention it in their own lists. This article is not named IMF, World Bank, or CIA List of countries by GDP (nominal), and the fact the article sources mention EU/EZ will not change the fact EU is not considered a country by anyone. If we take a list of, let's say, Latin American countries by GDP, and it mentions OECD GDP for comparison, will this make OECD into a Latin American country? Is there any rule in Wikipedia stating that sources must be quoted entirely, without any edition for consistency with the articlethey are used in? I would go even further, and suggest to remove World from the figures, because as it is, we can not be sure about the intended meaning. Does it mean "totals" for these lists? The introduction even mentions there are some countries excluded, so, are these included in "World"? If not, the meaning of "world" in these lists is questionable, too. Weeweew (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • keep Discussed at length before, agreement to keep EU at the appropriate position but without rank number was reached. No new arguments, no reason to reconsider. Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. This was already discussed, nothing has changed to alter the issue. To extend the "exclude" logic, then we'd have to exclude one entity almost universally included for far longer than the EU has existed: Hong Kong. Btw, one person notes that the EU lacks a common single currency. Well, so did the United States for a good portion of its existence. Canada Jack (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Removal. I'm a little late to the party as I'd given up on the article. This looks like a cut and dry majority decision based on editor interest(s) rather than a careful assessment of the causation for the previous inclusion decision. That aside, the EU is not a county and we all know it. Nor is it a fair marker as it, like many other treaty bound organizations could be included as such (include one, include them all?) Actually, that goes against the basis of the article and as I've said from the beginning, I think a fair compromise would be to have a list of organizational bodies by GDP in a complimentary article.
Speaking of compromised, this article is, by what I feel is politicking. I hope through my arguments it is clearly dictated that I value the content of the article scientifically and by the rule of word. List of countries by GDP - that is the title. If there was one valid source that stated the EU was a country, I'd be more than happy to retrograde my previously held stance. Rather, we have statements such as, "The EU is like a country."
Winter is like summer in many respects. The sun is still in the sky. The moon continues its daily voyage around the earth. Trees and mountains still dot the horizon as the ocean tide ebbs and flows. That doesn't mean I'm going to run outside today in a speedo, nor does it mean winter is summer. Neutralis (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


The heading "of Countries" should probably be "of Economies" Kormie (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I second this idea. I'll make the change. If we are going to include "Economies" rather than countries, we need a better title definition. I look forward to the debate (although as stated above, would prefer two articles, one with countries and one with "economies" or "organizational bodies." Neutralis (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Move complete. Before I get into the labor intensive part of renumbering, I'll give a few hours for debate. Although I think this is a great compromise. Neutralis (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Inclusion and oppose renaming to economies. Renaming to economies will just confuse everything, bring into question why the EU doesn't have a rank and why each of the member nations are included etc. Including the EU in the list has been argued over viciously before, and I agree entirely with it being there. I really hate this particular argument because it's true, the EU is not a country. But that doesn't mean that its inclusion in this list isn't useful as a comparison to other countries, just as it is useful to include the World total. It is obvious to anyone that spends more than a millisecond looking at the list and the intro that the EU is not a country, so the opportunity for confusion due to this extra information seems very slim. So the choices, in my view, are to make the article less useful by removing the EU and all the other "non countries" in the list (the world and various dependencies etc) or to say that such pedantry is not an improvement to the article and leave it how it is. TastyCakes (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Inclusion and oppose renaming to economies. The EU is not a country but it is useful to include the EU (and the Euro area) with lists of countries, and it would not be helpful to rename the article. Other organizations obviously also think so. I would support inclusion of an explicit footnote explaining the situation (wasn't there such a note, previously?); this could echo the statement in the CIA Factbook, which includes the EU in the Country Profiles:

"Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded. Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook. However, because of the EU's special status, this description is placed after the regular country entries."

--Boson (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

This article contains Original Research in the form of adding Eurozone to list #2 and by incorporating separate, different non-country lists (alternative source) in list #1.

In addition, I would point out that not only is the EU or Eurozone not a country, including it is biased in that other joint economic unions or trading areas are excluded.

EU and European should ONLY be included when the original source has them. Otherwise it is Original Research. If the original source has them they should NOT be excluded. This means that it may be appropriate to include it in the third list, but only in the third list. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The source for list number one says this on the "country" list: On this site, the term "country" does not in all cases refer to a territorial entity that is a state as understood by international law and practice. As used here, the term also covers some territorial entities that are not states. The IMF has two lists here, one with a list of "countries," which it notes is not limited to countries, and the second which has a grand total of two entities on it - the World and the EU.
The source for list two lists countries, and non-country entities such as Hong Kong, the World, some regions and a single specific entity - the euro area.
The source for list three, under the column "country," lists non-country entities such as Hong Kong and... The European Union.
There is no "Original Research" here as the ONLY entities which are listed here are the ones which appear on the respective lists. Indeed, we have simply copied what the lists choose to list. You might have an argument for list number 1, but then we'd also have to excise the figures for "World" which, you'd agree, is a useful figure to have. As I've said before, it seems clear that the various bodies choose to see the publication of EU/EZ figures as warranted and relevant. Therefore, so should we. Canada Jack (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the source for list #1, I do not see the European Union in the list of countries. I have said that if the source does not include it in the list, neither should the article. If the source does include it, so should the article.
The second list is a compilation of TWO DIFFERENT lists. Thus this is synthesis. Let's look at the definition of synthesis:
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Two different lists -- even from the same reliable source -- is two different lists. The reason that it is two different lists in the original source is that the second list is NOT a list of countries. To include the second list in a list of countries is "a synthesis of published material that advances a new position and that constitutes original research".
Only the CIA list should include the EU, because it is the ONLY one that includes that in the original source. However, the CIA list should be presented in alphabetical order -- to preserve its intent, which was not to compare ranks but to research by geographic unit.

--Blue Tie (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The lists are from the SAME source in case one, and is not "combine[d] material from multiple sources." Seems you have not carefully checked the sources here, I urge you to do so. As I said, if we are to omit the EU, then, logically, we should also omit the World. The source saw it relevant to note two additional GDP figures - for the world, for the EU. Therefore, so should we. The question one should ask is: why did the source bother to list the world and EU GDP figures, and only the world and EU figures? It seems because they thought it relevant to do so. Therefore, so should we. It's not as if we went searching to find how to include the EU here, the source supplied the numbers.

The second list includes, unnumbered, the figures for the world and for the eurozone. But it's on a single list. Not sure how one can say there are two lists there. If this wasn't so, why are notes for subscripts for France and others found under the table?

As for your suggestion about reproducing the CIA list alphabetically, what "intent" are we talking about here which needs preservation? The "intent" to display countries in an alphabetical sequence? Or the "intent" to display the GDP of these countries? Surely the CIA had no "intent" to list for the world's benefit a definitive alphabetic ranking of world economies. It's not as if there is a breathless wait each year to see of the CIA still considers Fiji to be alphabetically in front of Finland... Canada Jack (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious, and so much to the point. Tomeasy T C 07:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hilarious is your attempt to discredit Blue Tie's opinion this way. The case for including European Union in the World Bank listing is evidently made up by combining this and this, only the first one being a country list. Why did the editor decided EU country group is so worth mentioning it has to be picked from another list, and why the other country groups are not? It could be justified to search for another source to include "World", as it could be seen as the sum of the entire list, and and it is a common feature of value listings to include the totals. But to make the effort to research a separate listing "Country Groups (aggregated data)" to include the misplaced information in a list of countries, is a very different thing. Weeweew (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Despite efforts to hide behind pretensions of academic propriety it’s clear to any sentient being that those who don’t like having the EU included in these lists are American supremacists’ who can’t handle the reality of the EU as unique ‘state-like’ entity. Wikipedia is supposed to be an information source for the purpose of providing relevant information, not stroking jingoistic egos. The EU is totally unique because it’s far more than just an organisation with a narrow remit, such NAFTA, NATO etc. The EU has unprecedented levels of integration concerning social law, open internal borders, common passports and a great many other elements that are only to be found elsewhere in the World within traditional single nation organisations. Furthermore, this process of union is developing exponentially; the recent ratification of the Lisbon Treaty being significant. Today, the 19th November 2009, the EU has created its first full term President and Cabinet, ending the previous six monthly cyclical presidency system, with authority to represent all its member states in a way far more similar to the way the President of the USA functions than as a mere chairperson of a trade or mutual defence organisation. Indeed, the Lisbon Treaty finally puts an end to any argument as to whether or not the EU should be represented in this article. Additionally those who continue to argue against this inclusion are now clearly revealed as nothing more than US patriotic spoilers.81.107.64.19 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no American supremacist, I'm not even American or European, and my position is EU does not belong to these lists, and Wikipedia is not responsible for making it into a country, EU itself is. The day EU ceases to be an alliance of countries, regardless of how integrated these are, and becomes a single country, it will belong here, and all former EU countries, will not. Weeweew (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Population

I am not going to edit the page, I'll that for others more involved. I just wanted to suggest that population figures be included in the GDP chart. Better yet would be GDP divided by the number of people. So for instance if you looked at the chart now, you might reach the conclusion that China and Japan have similar economic production, but China's GDP per person is much much lower than Japan's. 97.91.175.129 (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

GDP per capita is linked to at the bottom of the page. We have several pages dealing with various permutations of GDP, GNP, PPP, nominal, per capita etc.... VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does the list exclude .....

Vatican city, which is known to be rich...???--222.64.18.96 (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a microstate which does not have all the characteristics of a state. For example, Vatican City has no inborn population, and much of its workers reside outside in Rome. Therefore its GDP per capita figure would be misleading--disproportionately high. Anna Lincoln 08:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with my IMF update?

I can't understand how people come here and without notifying anything they revert a page. I went onto the IMF website and found the last report and estimates of the 184 members of the International Monetary Fund as I included in this source. So I don't understand why people reverted everything I did. I took the numbers from the IMF website. I'm not making anything up. I spend over 2 hours updating this page and is very rude to simply delete it without at least explaining me why. However I edited it again because those are actual numbers. Thanks. 201.248.70.93 (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I can tell you are frustrated about making spending so much times making what you thought were constructive edits. Unfortunately the figures you "updated" are only projected figures. Actual 2009 estimates will be released in April 2010. You are welcome to update the other pages with the most up-to-date 2008 figures. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Has to be updated

If anyone has read the news, they'll know that the Italian economy has overtaken the British one.--Theologiae (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


It was just a blip caused by the sudden and short lived drop in the exchange rate between the Euro and the Pound. For a moment the Pound was worth just 1.06 Euros but has now reverted back to a more realistic rate of 1.10 to 1.12. UK is now just ahead of Italy again. The current reccession has hit the UK harder than the Euro zone. Just before the crises the UK was just ahead of France; it will be intersting to see how this volatile exchange rate mechanism develops over the next year or two; will the Pound recover further and will the Euro continue the fall started a month ago? There's no doubt that Italys' adoption of the Euro has made her relative GDP jump exponetially over the last few years. Clearly her economy is being substantially supported by Germany and France principally and secondarily by the little power house economies of the high functional states of the Benelux group.81.107.64.19 (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IMF 2009 GDP Nominal figures

shouldnt we use the IMFs 2009 GDP figures now? 2008 is nearly over!!! its about time we re do the IMFs 2008 list and update it to 2009Bro5990 (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just put the project figures below the official 2008 figures? Just be sure to note that they are projected.--Mark0528 (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Japan GDP 2008-2009 problem

According do this site (IMF) : http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2009&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=158&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=55&pr.y=16 Japan's GDP in 2009 will be $5,048.634 billions (it was $4,910.692 billions in 2008).

How is this possible ? We know that the Projected % Change of Japan's GDP for 2009 is -5,4% ! (http://www.imf.org/external/country/JPN/index.htm) --Zhonghuo (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There's this thing called currency conversion rate. The list is in USD and JPY has been appreciating ever since the financial crisis.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why cann't people just wait for the real 2009 figure coming cout in April 2009, rather than putting projected data of 2009? Be patient —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidshou (talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

a list of every country in the world.

I do not have a clue because this website doesn't tell me proparly.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.81.231 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

China to Surpass Japan to Become 2nd Largest Economy in the world

China to Surpass Japan to Become 2nd Largest Economy (Sinocast) December 29 2009. --Before2012 (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Eurovision

How can we fix this article? Anyone that even gets a bristle of the hair follicles on their body when the wind blows knows the EU is not a country. I'm not going to keep fighting to make this article factual. I know "I've lost." Well, not me, but rather the information has been disrupted. The people have lost. The people that come here to see that there is the "World" - a list of countries and the EU, which I am sure brings back sweet, sweet memories for the majority of the populous of this colonial earth.

I put in a RFC. I think 6 people took the time to look at it and it was gone with no comment. Thus, this article will be ruled by the maintainers. Wikipedia worst case scenario...

And then we have the aged argument, "..but,...but....a decision was made on this back when..." A decision was made on Pluto as well. Smart people looked at it and realized it was an orbiting body on the inner edge of the ort cloud rather than a "planet" in our simple definition.

Here are the facts: Title of said article is - List of countries by GDP. Is the EU a country? No.

How hard is this, really? Is it a marker? Sure. Is it important? Yes. Is it a country. No.

I should "crusade" on this topic as it is ridiculous that simple fact be ignored for other purposes. This is Wikipedia. Let's get is right. The EU has no place here. None. Neutralis (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it relevant to add these two entries. In my personal opinion:
Yes, because it provides context to interpret the size of the other countries GDP. So far that reason alone, EU has a place here (PS I would not protest if other economical powerblocks were added if the sources provided the information but they don't). Arnoutf (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, If that is the case, should we include other bodies? I guess that is the argument. And with that said, why not have a chart of said bodies? Where do you draw the line? Mexico is in NAFTA. So is Canada. So if we add them as NAFTA, do we remove them from the list of countries? Well, no...because a good part of the list is EU countries. So they are there. End of story: This is a list of countries...Not what makes us feel better.Neutralis (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I would not mind having the NAFTA in without a rank number (like World and EU). But we do need the referred sources to provide the number. Arnoutf (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This escapes the point. This is a list of counties (well, now it is a list of economies, which is more fitting - but I feel that will change.) No matter, We can't expand the definition just because. This is a list of countries. Here is a list of my baseball cards, but I am going to include this football card because it is the most valuable one I own, oh and it is important...Neutralis (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Not relevant for strictly baseball stats, but economics are more encompassing then countries. And yes I think it would be relevant to add a few examples to the list of wages of baseball players for context. E.g. such a list of wages would benefit from the addition of the most earning sports professional who is not a baseball player but to my knowledge a golfer. Arnoutf (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
So, as good Wikipedians, should we now offer this new light on other pages within the knowledge base? I'm a huge baseball fan. Look up payrolls all the time. I didn't see any football, or hockey numbers on those pages, er..."for reference." I just saw the numbers. The payrolls. That was it. Baseball payrolls were baseball payrolls. Football payrolls were football payrolls. Call me stupid, there must be something wrong with that...You know, having the title reflect specifically what is in the article with no deviation based on outside geopolitics...shessh.. Neutralis (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
While this argument might have some merit on the surface, it's not really the same because if you want to find out the list of NHL salaries you'd go to that page and if you wanted NFL salaries you'd go to that page (which I can't find at the moment). But you can't exactly have a "list of countries by GDP" and a "list of extra-national entities by GDP". Players in different leagues break down very logically into two lists. But, in my view, the only logical place to include the EU in a GDP list is here. There is no "better home" for it like there is with a baseball player in the NHL list. Removing it from here removes a useful piece of information, in my opinion, and is not worth doing just so the article pedantically agrees with the its title. TastyCakes (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

JesusIMF, WB and CIA all include the EU/Eurozone. Is wikapeadia all of a sudden too lofty to ignore the EU? Its pretty obvious the EU is put in for comparison and above all because its the way the world is heading (continental trade blocks). Or is this realy about the fact Americans dont take the top spot any more in the global economy, and your feeling insecure? If it is realy about the EU NOT being a country then change the title to List of countries and political unions by GDP (nominal) and if you all didnt know the UK is 4 countries in Union, is the EU any differant? realy? except for the fact the EU is much younger and less unified than the UK, but time sorts all......so if the EU goes then so dose the UK...one rule must apply to all... basicly Change the title or have it mates...Bro5990 (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


Also if people use their brain, the EU and world dont have a rank. Simply there for comparison. the UK however, which isnt even a country has a rank....if you Neutralis were truely concerned about the integrity of the artical then the UK should be your foremost concern!!!! EU is the worlds largest Political and Economic Union and dominates the world economic system, its currency is replacing the $, and already the Euro is the new global currency for Oil, the Euro is also much stronger than the $...simply the EU is too important to remove from the list. Bro5990 (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

controversial move

Against the repeated claim in the edit summaries, there is no evidence of any consensus, not even an open discussion whether this page should be moved.

The moving editor was bold in moving (fair enough) was reverted, and then moved again.

In the absence of the claimed consensus in the edit summary I think this is not a good way forward.

In any case, if this were a list of economies rather than countries we should list ALL none country economies, that includes those of ALL the different economic unions in the world AND ALL the subcountry economies (e.g. those of all the US states). And all of that with reliable sources. Without that information the move towards economies is making this article infinitely worse than it is now. The challenge lies with you Neutralis, provide these numbers (immediately) or stop pushing this move. Arnoutf (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be bold in listing the Economies. I will make this my personal goal to offer this information to wikipedia. We have the largest in the EU and we can work from there. I appreciate you understanding that a consensus in a group of 50 is not a consensus in a group of a 100. I offered RFC, and there was silence. Nothing. There was no community response to this subject, being - I think it is so cut and dry. (i.e. countries go on a county list.) Of course, I'd be fully willing to ask you to help me get a fair community view of this issue, while not important in social value, important in fact. Neutralis (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I would politely ask User:Neutralis to refrain from making controversial moves until a clear consensus has been reached to make the change. A few months back, User:Neutralis strongly made his case that the EU did not belong in this article and was engaged in a edit war to remove the EU. Now it seems that he is moving the article name to justify his point. I would suggest that we follow a policy of WP:BRD to avoid edit war and use the talk to come to a consensus before making contentious changes in the article. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you should have politely asked other users from starting an edit war. That aside, I am sure they will suffer appropriate penalties from 3RR. Nahh, they won't, I'll revert one more time, let someone else be the 5RR person and being this argument is so ridiculous. I think knowledge lost - not me.
Here is the truth...Europeans want the EU listed. Hey, they are better wikipedians. No doubt about that. There is no real reason to keep the EU on this list, but it will stay. And it just reeks of politico. No intelligent person would think the EU is a country, yet there are pages of people that say it is...how sad. How very sad. Good day, and good year. Neutralis (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone please (on my vacation) get a real RFC here so we can actually have an outside look at the simple issue of, "is the EU a country." I know it is a hard thing that they don't teach in school...but I believe in smart people "out there" that can work their way through a dictionary. And no, the claim that the EU is a reference is BS...we can pull in all sorts of references. What makes the EU special? Because those countries where involved in enslaving most of the world for half a millenia? I personally don't think so... Neutralis (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Stats, numbers. List of countries by GDP. How hard is this, really? Neutralis (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think you should move it pending a consensus here. --John (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed. But I don't think consensus can be had here. I think we need an outside determinate body. I broke the rules, and now we are looking at 5RR (which I am reporting now, fully knowing I will be put on rest as well.) You can't let the foxes decide if the hens are allowed to play in their yard. I've argued a lot of stupid things in my life, but this really should not be an argument. I state the argument over and over in its simplest terms, yet I don't think people get it. It is not a list of the most powerful countries in the world. It is not a list of the most powerful bodies in the world. It is not a list of the most powerful alliances in the world. It is simple. So, simple. List of countries by GDP. That is what it is...nothing more, nothing less.... Neutralis (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

GDP expressed in national currency units

Why are we using US dollars instead of national currency units for GDP ? Can we create a new article with these numbers ? Polylepsis (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to rank the countries, you need a common currency.
It is common to use the US dollar for this purpose (e.g., our sources do so). Tomeasy T C 12:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 GDP figures?

When do the 2009 figures come out? could some one tell me please? I do hope we dont have to wate too long........ Bro5990 (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 Polylepsis (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
or maybe during the last week of January 2010. http://forums.imf.org/showthread.php?t=322&page=4 Polylepsis (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Aren't the January figures just revised staff estimates (forecasts), not actual preliminary data?--Boson (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
yes i think so. Polylepsis (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Revised list

Would it be possible to create a revised list adjusted for national debt? It would be interesting to see how countries such as the EU, US, and China were affected by their debt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.72.87 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Italy...

...BEHIND CANADA? --89.97.21.231 (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Bubu 05-05-09 12:01 CET —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.224.160.136 (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

jjaajjaja ya canda..the last of the last..why canada is in the g8? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.102.250 (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ITALY OVERTAKE UK ECONOMY.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/6418344/UK-economy-overtaken-by-Italy.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.102.250 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan real name

Taiwan name according to IMF is Taiwan Province of China. See: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/02/weodata/weoselco.aspx?g=110&sg=All+countries+%2f+Advanced+economies Polylepsis (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a centrally decided consensus for this issue on Wikipedia, see this policy WP:NC-TW. Many similar cases exist (e.g., Macedonia), and we stick to our guidlines and policies even if the source uses a different naming convention. Nevertheless, thanks for the interesting info on how IMF is now referring to this state. Tomeasy T C 00:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
We only use figures from IMF. Not the name according to IMF. That's not even a common name. It doesn't matter whatever so and so says is the name because Wikipedia uses a different naming convention as Tomeasy has showed above. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

China and Japan

China overtake Japan! [1] [2] [3] --88.69.218.160 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Yet! This list is for 2008. Although it is legitimate to ask if the figures for China in 2008 should be updated to 4.6 billion as indicated by the latest Census in China based on your references.

The lists are updated when the sources of the lists update their figures. Not before. Canada Jack (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
CIA Factbook has been updated with economical data for year 2009, someone should update table in article. 28 January 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.67.228 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)/Archive_7&oldid=1140528069"