Talk:2009 G20 London summit

Leaders attending the London summit

United States of America represented by The Honourable Barack Obama, President of the United States of America

The United States does not recognize titles indicative of royalty. There is no reason to have the word honourable in this section. I cannot speak to any other leaders of other nations but this is a very serious matter in the US. Barack Obama is just a man elected by the populous, not a king, not a prince. I am removing this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.95.240.241 (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Honourable#United_States and the London Summit website, both indicate that The Honorable is the correct title for the President of the United States, it is a diplomatic title and should be left on, also The Honorable has nothing to do with royalty so please don't remove it and please get your facts right. Lodi01 (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going off of the information from here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment but it seems I was taking it a bit out of context. Thank you for the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.95.240.241 (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Oliver

Can Jamie Oliver really be called 'infamous'? He hasn't committed any crime (in the eyes of the law). Also is the food supposed to 'fit' with the recession or the hiring of the 'pukka' Jamie Oliver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.155.86 (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm removing 'infamous'. Non-encycopedic. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Protests

Has anyone been able to find evidence that the violence has actually been created by government sponsored agent provocateurs to criminalize the legitimate protesters? There were no police at all at the Bank of Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.109.195.126 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't re-add details of protests to this article. See WP:SOAP for reasons. bruce89 (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

to achieve NPOV, we need to give both the offical summit webpages (even there pamphlets have been included), and the counter views equal weight. This is not an article about the G20 in general but about the London summit. --Jonnieo (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, but please make sure that opinions aren't mentioned here. bruce89 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It still feels as though this is being used as an advertising spot for some of the protests. Some of the sources given don't seem to be WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, but rather self-promotional. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've heard a report on BBC News 24 that a protester collapsed and died out side the Bank of England although no cause has been given yet (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/01/g20-protests-london034.html?ref=rss) do you think that this should be included in the section under protests? Lodi01 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC) - This has been referenced now.

Order of sections

the section on "planned protests" either belongs after "preparations" and any other sections about the official summit itself...perhaps as a subset of "miscellaneous" or as separate article but not in second position after "agenda."

the article is supposedly about the official summit and not the ancillary events. if it is to cover both the official summit and the protests (with such weighting), the article needs to be retitled.--71.183.238.134 (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree the article should encompass the entire event, including the protests and ancillary events, although main weighting should be given to the offical summit. Lodi01 (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Language on attendees

2nd paragraph currently states "Heads of government and heads of state from the G-20 countries plus Thailand, representing the ASEAN, Spain and the Netherlands are expected to attend."

1. suggests that Thailand is representing spain and the netherlands. i doubt this is intent.

2. furthermore, language doesn't conform with invitees list provided on supposed official site at http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk/en/summit-aims/faqs/general-questions/who-will-attend"

one would expect a full list of the g20 countries presented early in the article (or at a minimum, a link to those countries)

--71.183.238.134 (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

i see list has been added since i added above comment. what is its source?. it does not reconcile with invitee list cited in my comment directly above (e.g., The Netherlands on offical site is presented as g-20 country; there are several other inconsistencies)--71.183.238.134 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The list of nations attending is taken from the London summit site, and is cited as being taken from there. As for the Netherlands being classed not as a G20 country, that is taken from the previous version of the list as the Netherlands being a none G20 member, that is also confirmed at http://www.g20.org/about_what_is_g20.aspx where the Netherlands is not listed as a member country, nor is spain. Lodi01 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

Perhaps this article should be semi-protected, to make hijacking by anarchists more difficult. bruce89 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly it should be considered if there is a sudden spike in vandalism - but so far there has been surprisingly little. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

i concur with user:lord cornwallis. furthermore, i'm sure article is heavily watched by diligent editors and any flurries of vandalism will be reverted post haste.--71.183.238.134 (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If the anarchists come out in force tomorrow we should request semi protection. Many of the trouble makers probably dont know how to use PCs though, too much of a dirty capitalist invention ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the article is a good idea because of the protests. If a protester spams and vandalizes or blanks the article about the economy, climate change, capitalism, unemployment, or the high cost of debt, then the 2009 G-20 London summit article would be a disaster, and the offender would be blocked or banned on the vandalized article and/or all of Wikipedia on the first offense. If a registered user does a same thing (spams and vandalizes or blanks the article about the economy, climate change, capitalism, unemployment, or the high cost of debt), then the upgrade to full-protection would be immediately required. RYAN 3000 (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the Semi Protecting, but anyway i will be keeping a close eye on the article tomorrow (2nd aka today) as well as trying to keep it up to date with anything that happens but Semi Protecting may be worth it. Lodi01 (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm of a mixed mind when it comes to semi-protecting. Sometimes it becomes nessacary by the sheer weight of vandalism which can totally disrupt a page to a point where it no longer functions properly. However in this case there has been very limited vandalism so far, and some very good edits by IPs. I am really loathe to cut off the acess unregistered users have to edit these pages unless there is very clear evidence that the majority are abusing that right.

As Lodi points out there will likely be quite a few editors keeping an eye on the page, and hopefully that will suffice. While articles like this often become a magnet for vandals, they also draw in a number of responsible editors who can monitor them for disruption. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The truth is that in a couple of days this article will not be of any great interest to most

That is very true, but it still does require vigilance until then. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Challenged by an MEP

Umm, in the article it says "While speaking at the European Parliament in Strasbourg he was challenged by an MEP over his spending plans." Sorry but more than one MEP challanged him. UKIP probably bashed him hard too. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaders attending

I've updated the list of leaders attending so its correct based off the offical list along with the offical things they are representing Lodi01 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that UN Sec Genera Ban Ki Moon is attending as a leader (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7973178.stm) he is listed as the first G20 leader to arrive at downing street at 19:27 , should he be added to the G20 leaders or none leaders?

--Lodi01 (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Should be added to non members BritishWatcher (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Meles Zenawi

PM of Ethiopia Meles Zenawi is also in attendence. He is in the picture with all the attending world leaders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.46.162 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Time of article - don't get ahead of reality

at my reading just now, the article's latest revision is "This page was last modified on 2 April 2009, at 08:02" and article states "took place in London on 2 April 2009"

how can article be in past tense already? has meeting even started? i'm watching "live" coverage of obama's arrival at the summit as i type this.--71.183.238.134 (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

British English

WP:ENGVAR says that an article can change the style of English if there are strong national ties. I believe that the strongest national ties are to the UK as it is the host this year, therefore I believe we should use full British English on the article. Your views? Ijanderson (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Veracity of sources for footnotes referencing "protests"

many of the footnotes supporting the language on protests are from protest websites themselves. i would expect the references to be from newsmedia - reuters, bbc, nytimes, washington post, american television news (abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, fox, msnbc) et al.

also, the protest section remains a rather large weight of the overall article. perhaps the section can be trimmed a bit after cooling-off day or so.--71.183.238.134 (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with some of the references as they are about the aims of the protest, as well as location, certainly what actually happens needs to be references from independant sources such as the BBC, Routers, AP, etc Lodi01 (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of reputable sources for the policing of the protests, which has become something of a scandal in the UKMein Kopf (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Outcome of the meeting

I've added a section on the outcome, although i've only used the BBC as a source, i think it would be good if anyone can look over the section and add to it, as well as add more sources the outcome of the section as it is one of the most important parts of the summit Lodi01 (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

did general copyedit to flush out section; didn't pursue other references.--71.183.238.134 (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I put in the "New world order" section. I think it's important to mention how the United States is losing its influence in the world. This is a fundamental change in world history. Analoguni (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a much better/fuller analysis of the outcome on the Spectator's website, at http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3509801/browns-illusory-g20-deal.thtml 217.207.200.234 (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there gremlins editing tonight (nyc time)?

i see various vandalism-type corrections made for which i don't see source of original bum entry in the history log. or am i just overly tired?--71.183.238.134 (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

I noticed that King Abdullah was not in the photo of the G20 leaders, but it looked like the Kingdom had a different representative. What's the deal?Ummcke09 (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This not in the main page yet?

Who is lagging? --AaThinker (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The regulation agreement, does it have any details?

Or did they just say "we'll regulate more"? This is some crazy important stuff. Does anyone have any sources to improve the article? --AaThinker (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Theres a copy of the agreement on the London Summit website, but i've not had a chance to read through it yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodi01 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaders attending the London Summit (2)

Isn't the official name of Italy the Italian Republic? --212.36.9.141 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so, its listed as the "Republic of Italy" on the London Summit site, so it should be kept as that Lodi01 (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And why does the article Italy prefer the name "the Italian Republic"? Moreover, this is the direct translation of the Italian "Repubblica Italiana".

Italy /ˈɪtəli/^ⓘ (Italian: Italia), officially the Italian Republic (Italian: Repubblica Italiana), is a country located on the Italian Peninsula...

--212.36.9.141 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Death - Language

At the moment the section on the death says that the Police officer assaulted Tomlinson, how ever until the IPCC reports on the event it is not clear if it was indeed an assault or just an over reaction, i feel this section needs reworking to clearly state what the police officer did. i.e. Hit Mr. Tomlinson from behind with his batton. Does anyone agree? Lodi01 (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably use the work 'struck' rather than 'assault'. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Page name?

Should "summit" be in uppercase? The caption of the pic at the top of the article states that the official logo of the summit was named "THE LONDON SUMMIT". It seems like it was the official short version name for the summit.--Anewpester (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the page. --Anewpester (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Importance of Policing

Given the media attention that allegations of police brutality have received, and the consequent announcement of the review of policing tactics by Denis O'Connor, I feel strongly that this should be reflected in the lede. I think that this is important given that the meeting was generally agreed to have achieved very little, and that g20 meetings have been accompanied by police brutality in the past.Mein Kopf (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The protests should be mentioned the lead but it should be reasonably proportionate to the far more notable issue, the actual economic agenda. Whether they achieved a little or whether they achieved a lot, the economic discussion were far more notable then the protests and the lead should not give equal coverage to the economic discussion and the protests. --Anewpester (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The protests now have their own seperate article of which they are the primary focus. The primary focus of this article is the actual summit itself. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the protests should be linked to at the head of this article, as they are directly related. Please provide sources to support the statement that "the economic discussion were far more notable then the protests". A google search suggests that 25% of reports mention the protests. I am not arguing for "equality", but representation, and the policing was an important part of the summit, especially in terms of the disruption it caused to London.Mein Kopf (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that the economic discussions were less notable then the protests?--Anewpester (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Many more people were involved, and past G20 meetings are remembered more for repression, than for the economic discussions.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Summit vs Protest article emphasis

Instead of removing protest info, could those concerned with the amount of emphasis on the summit, please improve/add info about the summit - Better to construct than destruct. Chendy (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Ideally, the best way to counter disproportionality is to add information. However, adding information about economic agreements is more difficult then adding information about when and why a cop beat some protesters. What's the policy-appropriate approach? To have a disproportionate article with more information of or a proportionate article with less information? --Anewpester (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well put. The answer is to have all well sourced relevant information included - "To have a disproportionate article with more information". Wikipedia is inherently "work in progress", and as it works on the basis of volunteers providing material of a certain quality - any material above a set quality should be accepted. Validity (within reason) is determined by the voluntary labour market (editors) - those who want to add (or support) such information will do so. You are making presumptions of what is proportionate (summit good - protest trivial). Are you suggesting we trim away well sourced information on an article by article basis? Or if we look at WP on the whole, many may feel we should trim away whole articles in the name of proportionality (Simpson's characters etc.). If you feel areas are relatively lacking attention request or do it yourself, but please do not override other peoples wishes and efforts. There is no need to delete - We have no real storage issues on WP, we only need quality control (sourcing) and appropriate sectioning and subpaging. Construct not destruct. PS I am interested in the policing (death and general police nastyness), however also in the outcomes of the summit (which I have minorly contributed to). Chendy (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The protest now has its own seperate article. Before it was created it was right that a substantial part of this page be made up by text featuring the protest - but now it should provide only a brief summary and a link to the relevant article. This article's primary focus is on the summit, the protest article's primary focus is on the protests. If there are larger portions of text being added here that aren't mentioned in the G20 protests article, then they be added to that article rather than this one. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lord Cornwallis. Since the protests and the one death both have their own separate article the information is not being suppressed anywhere. A brief summary with a link to the main articles should suffice. And Chendy, regarding your comment earlier, I respectfully disagree. WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are Wikipedia policies that are required for all articles. If to comply with these policies information must be removed, then it should be removed. --Anewpester (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the Summit

Why does this section not exist? There was a lot of criticism that it was an expensive and inconvenient waste of time that produced no real result, and was basically a PR exercise. There is an article on the protests, but htat is a different matter. Such a section should be created.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You can create it yourself if you can find sources criticising the summit. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

USA/US

I know its common on wikipedia to use US instead of USA, how ever i don't feel its appropriate here mainly due to the fact that one its an official diplomatic list in the leaders attending taken from a source which uses USA, and two mexico is also in the list and its my understanding that Mexico's name translates as US Mexico. but is often refereed to as US by mexicans. Also its been USA for quiet a while until yesterday and no one had an issue with it, and Lord Cornwallis your also correct about the UK it should be stated as United Kingdom of Great Briton & N. Ireland, at least in the list of leaders attending.

If no one disagrees i'm going to change them both to the official names —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodi01 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

China Influence Dispute

Qazmlp1029 & Nirvana888 Could you please explain why you are in favor/not in favor of the section on China. My personal view is it just needs rewording to something like.

In comparison to the decreased influence of the United States some commentators noted that there was a perceived increase in influence of China due to the "increasingly self-confident tone" Chinese officials were reported to be taking..

I'm not totally sure how you'de continue it if you would but its worth a mention at least. --Lodi01 (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up archiving for the talk page its getting a little cluttered i thinking something like 45 days as the archiving point may be good? --Lodi01 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-inventing the wheel

The process of working on this article was unique.

At the same time, some of the steps in collaborative editing may be similar to other articles about other summits.

It is reasonable to list a few comments about what was learned during work on the 2009 G-20 London summit?

Perhaps this thread can help mitigate lessons learned the hard way? --Tenmei (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:G-20 major economies which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2009 G20 London summit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306164554/http://www.number10.gov.uk:80/Page17594 to http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17594
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718204200/http://www.botschaft-frankreich.de/spip.php?article3896 to http://www.botschaft-frankreich.de/spip.php?article3896
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090522150519/http://www.eu2009.cz:80/en/news-and-documents/news/g20-in-berlin-10464/ to http://www.eu2009.cz/en/news-and-documents/news/g20-in-berlin-10464/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090322021133/http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk:80/resources/en/PDF/finance-communique-140309 to http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk/resources/en/PDF/finance-communique-140309
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603074840/http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0327_global_governance_rieffel.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0327_global_governance_rieffel.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100618203130/http://g20.gc.ca:80/about-the-g20/g20-members/ to http://g20.gc.ca/about-the-g20/g20-members/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307193937/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2010/07/137_68891.html to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2010/07/137_68891.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101107074318/http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snep-05028.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snep-05028.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13398646
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225113005/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/managingtheglobaleconomy_081208.pdf to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/managingtheglobaleconomy_081208.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)