![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello. I've been working on this article since it was created and eventually managed to build up some of the key sections this article should have. I am hoping for any editors to research and write about anything else relevant to the Toronto summit. Please make sure they are similar in structure to the other G-20 summit articles. Thanks. Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 18:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyone who has eye-catching photos (leaders gathering, inside the summit meeting, protests etc.) they may have taken during the G-20 summit, please upload it. An image (or two) per section is fine but would make the article look more cleaner if the amount of images in each section not protrude into the section below it. Also it would be great if someone expanded the newly added "Agenda" article, information about the topics of discussion during the summit, what different leaders said etc. That section could even be retitled as "The summit" later on. Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 16:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
What's the "Fake Lake" I think it has something to do with the counter-constitutional suspension of parliment, the unwarranted prorogation, Harper's 3rd or 4th, the last one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.186.51 ( talk) 03:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Stupid question, but why is the Australian Deputy PM attending and not the PM? Is it to do with negotiations on forming a new cabinet? 216.164.33.62 ( talk) 01:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
What are the sources on the attendance? Becasue CNN just affirmed Lula is not attending adn this says he is. Looks like someone just added ALL heads of state. Lihaas ( talk) 20:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
A. As you may recall, the Prime Minister of Japan died shortly before the 6th G7 summit in Venice. At this point, the official Canadian website identifies anticipated participants; therefore, WP:V does allow posting who is anticipated to attend -- as I have done for the "core" participants. Tomorrow, when newspapers confirm attendance, I will move the citations from their current position to a position at the end of each line which will then encompass the named leaders. By that time, citation support will be available to verify who is representing Australia and Brazil, for example.
B. As you may not know, there has been a multi-year, slow-motion edit war abut EU particpation in the G8. IMO, WP:V encourages verification by citation rather than logic or perceived "common sense." In that context, the Canadian "official" website identified the EU here as "core" participants in the G8 meetings in Muskoka. Similarly, the "official" G20 website encompasses the EU here. For redundant clarity, this is made explicit -- "The G-20 consists of 19 countries and the European Union."
C. For this reason -- and consistent with WP:V, I moved the EU into the "core" group rather than as part of the unverified (but plausible) "regional organization" sub-category.
Does this explanation help in clarifying the several edits made in this section? -- Tenmei ( talk) 22:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Instead, I would argue that we avoid problems down the road by mirroring the official Canadian government website. In other words, re-positioning the EU particpants after the US should not matter.
However, my best guess is that this is one of those trivial points which makes a non-trivial difference. Nothing needs to be decided today, of course.
We can set this aside for now; but we will need to re-visit this after the summit ends. -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought ...? Perhaps it might be useful assume a " Rideau Hall point-of-view" ...? Consider this: The Governor-General's schedule planners use the best available information in preparing an advance list of those expected to attend an event, but there are likely to be changes. For example, those who are in charge of security remain flexible as they track the evolving data set of potential attendees.
In a sense, our Wikipedia article inevitably mirrors a congruent pattern. Some of yesterday's inline citations will prove accurate and adequate for the final draft, and some will not. When we look back at this article from the perspective of 2012, we will be able to see that our approach has captured a range of data-points across the cohort of international leaders and delegations. Ideally, there might be as many as 20 different verification composites. This approach ensures a context for a nuanced data set as the summit is re-evaluated in light of its long-term consequences.
In other words, attendance/participation of the "players" in the Toronto summit is not a captured "snapshot" of the pitch during a single World Cup soccer match.
Does this begin to describe a reasonable strategy composed of sequential tactics as applied in this one section of our article? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
per WP:EL "3.Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Sectioning within "EL's" are sign enough of too many links. I haven't removed any after the addition, but i put the tag till we can sort out what to keep and not. Lihaas ( talk) 11:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
As per my talk page, there's apparently a copyright problem with the File:450 g20 map.jpg (G-20 security zone map) on the article. I'm terrible with clearing up copyright problems, so if anyone could kindly clear that problem up (if it can be) that would be great. Otherwise, that image will be deleted. Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 18:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
To explain my latest edit:
Can we get some external links in the article? -- 194.219.131.81 ( talk) 21:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoever is working on the current protest news keep up the good work! (I'd be working on it too but caught up with some other work.) A few suggestions, a photo of one of the burning cruisers or the Black Bloc members running around? Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 23:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The claim that anarchists throw feces is a myth just like protestors spitting on soldiers coming back from vietnam. Neither are true but are reported to make protestors look bad. Corporate media should not be considered an objective point of view or a reliable source at all when dealing with reports of people who threaten corporate media's existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.190.52 ( talk) 05:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to split the protest section into its own article. Any objections? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
A number of things worked out right. This not-unimportant success needs to be underscored. Although the protestors/demonstrations aspect of this article is still a little rough, the current version is better balanced than
27th G8 summit, which perhaps offers a useful comparison ...? --
Tenmei (
talk)
14:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In addition to the ongoing Protests, the summit's Agenda and its Outcome should be worked on. Agenda should mention what ideas or issues each leader brought to the summit initially, as well as what events were scheduled by Harper and leaders to take place during the summit, and the Outcome should basically be what happened/what was said inside the summit meeting and it's aftermath. I've started writing a bit and probably continue to add more once more information flows in. Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 15:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The section about what's happening currently at the G20.... it says that some of the protesters did not keep their "peaceful protest" promise, but most of them were NOT protesters. Most of them were not even from Toronto. Notice they lack of signs, chants, or any other form of comminication. LOctopus ( talk) 19:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The summit is over, the leaders are gone/going home, police take off gas masks, protests are calming down, and it's raining...
Just a friendly reminder, along with some further developments and final touches to the Protests section, we must, must, must work on and build the Agenda and Outcome sections--the core sections of this article pertaining to the objective of the summit. Also, the article will be glorified if we could get a snapshop of all the leaders during the summit photo opportunity uploaded. With all those done, the article is essentially complete. Further tasks can be considered, such as a suggested split of the Protests section. Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 23:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It is my guess that there will be more than one version -- perhaps at the whitehouse.gov? I would expect for this particular image to be deleted in favor of a better, clearer one? -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Tenmei - I just noticed that on 2010 G-20 Toronto summit, you've been diligently adding references (which is good) but doing so without using the proper reference templates and removing the template format from pre-existing refs (which is bad). Please don't remove the template from references that already use it and, when adding new references, use one of the templates available here. Thanks. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps some of the questions raised in this thread could have been averted if I had posted an "under construction" notice in the section? Something like the following?--
Tenmei (
talk)
14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC) {:{Expand|section|Date=June 2010}}Please note work-in-progress editing -- see also
#G20 participants
Article looks like its nearly overflowing with info. It was previously suggested that the protests section could probably be split from this article. I'm sort of thinking that maybe the preparations section and probably the controversies sections may also need to be split as they have a lot of stuff. Basically creating new articles forming a series:
(In order of priority--from my perspective)
I'm currently considering these splits can help reduce this article a bit as it seems to be getting too large. Right now, the article basically looks like its focusing on what was done to host the summit, instead of what was done at the summit--the latter is what is most important and should be the main focus of this article. Once split, a short and sweet summary of those respective sections can remain in this article. Anyone support or oppose any of these moves? Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 15:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It's been widely reported that it has never been used, when in fact it has during an anti-poverty protest in 2000. Unfortunately I can't find a source because it's so trivial, but the CBC mentioned it in their coverage on the National yesterday around 6pm EST. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 22:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Just seems to be about Iran. Can we all agree that Iran is not the most human rights respecting nation, and it is sort of funny they are attacking Canada like that? There is a history there of course, with Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian Photojournalist who was killed in Iran and the continuing spat between the two on the world stage, Canada has numerous times introduced UN reoslutions condemning Iran for human right violations. Should it probably be mentioned that there is more reason to Iran's condemnations then concern for the protesters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.196.201 ( talk) 14:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing on Wikinews save hopeful search results here. Nothing in Libertapedia, Conservapedia has an article on Group of Twenty. As for Anarchopedia, all they have are the 1981 Toronto bathhouse raids and apparantly, for some reason, Avril Lavigne (both seem to be forks though) 70.54.181.70 ( talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Harpers punishing Toronto for not voting Tory? McGuinty treating Toronto citizens with similar contempt? Montrealers trashing our city? Huh? 205.189.194.208 ( talk) 22:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/29/g20-chief-fence571.html
Toronto's chief of police Bill Blair announced Tuesday that there never really was a 5 meter rule. I am far too angry about this to update the article in a non-biased way :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setitup ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The core participants of an international summits need to be identified; and a table format presents that information in summary fashion. The table scans more easily and more efficiently than prose or a list. Format does convey meaning.
The distinction between members and non-members is perhaps best presented by distinguishing a core table. I'm persuaded that one table is needed. In the same way that the infobox is a recurrent element in related articles, I would envisage the core participants table as a repeated element in all G20 summit articles. I haven't formed a view about whether one or more additional tables are good or preferable.
My work with others in developing this article causes me to re-think the value of tables in contexts of other international summits. I'm persuaded that it is probably a good idea to introduce core participant tables in articles about the G8 summits, the G-15 summits, etc.
Perhaps further discussion isn't necessary; but if so, this becomes a first step. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see congruent formatting in these tables:
This is step in a constructive direction. The format can be tweaked at any point in the future. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
ASEAN has been added to the infobox and to the tables on this page. A credible source verified ASEAN attendance at three summits; and this justifies including both the organization and its representative(s) in our article. ASEAN now appears in the tables at 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit and 2009 G-20 London summit. ASEAN is also incorporated in the table at 2010 G-20 Seoul summit.
However, this doesn't mean that ASEAN actually had a " place at the table." (compare phrase "at the table" used in Sheila Whyte. "The Protesters: Who's who at the summits," CBC News. June 9, 2010; excerpt, " 'At the Table' ... The largest and most powerful group of NGOs is a network of about 60 organizations—or other networks—meeting in Canada under this banner.")
I propose removing ASEAN from the infobox and from the tables.
My guess is that there is a one-to-one correlation between the list of 20+5 here and the seating at the specially constructed "table" featured in the photo at the right. In addition -- if you enlarge and study this photo -- you will see that there appear to be more than 25 seated at this central circle ... and there are others in the room as well.
In the absence of more specific data, it may be reasonable to limit what is added to our small infobox. One possible solution is to remove ASEAN from the infobox unless new information consistent with WP:RS and WP:V confirms that ASEAN is included in this center circle? Of course, ASEAN remains in the article text -- just not in the featured position in the infobox in the top right corner.
This rationale may affect others in attendance at this G-20 summit? at past G-20 summits? at future G-20 summits?
Perhaps we may need to identify another category of attendees?
ASEAN may have been an observer? I would propose tentative "observer" status for ASEAN -- and for any others who have not yet been added. In other words, I would propose establishing "observer" as a default in the absence of other credible data?
This issue is not urgent; but, it is worth pondering. All issues can be revisited in conjunction with 2010 G-20 Seoul summit. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I moved some text in the outcome section to better locations. However, I found no proper place for the text below. Feel free to reinsert it if you know where. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 08:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I've posted the update tag for the Outcome section, as it has not been cleaned up nor does it have the latest information on what was decided upon during the G-20 summit by the leaders. Would be great if someone could get that covered (sources can be found from the US White House website or the Government of Canada G-20 website listed under External links in the article). More sources from Google News under the appropriate search term can be found if necessary. EelamStyleZ Discuss 20:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?
| ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?
|
---|
|
|
|
|
|
Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?
|
---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some vandalism, but no recent edit-warring, so stability is not an issue |
|
|
|
I don't think there are any problems with this article that would make it deserve a fail during a GAN. I'm hoping someone could reassess this article and see if there are still any problems with this article that prevent it from becoming a good article. EelamStyleZ ( talk) 11:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
In addition, I would hope to see comments which identify what is "good" as well as what is "bad".
I would expect this GA assessment process could become a kind of template for expediting the assessment of other summit-related articles like 2010 G-20 Toronto summit preparations and 2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests. -- Tenmei ( talk) 14:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, and Senegal were NOT invited to participate in the G20 summit. They were invited to participate in the 36th G8 summit (along with Colombia, Haiti, and Jamaica) in Huntsville Ontario. These 7 countries should accordingly be removed from the list UNLESS someone can point to sources here that indicate that official invitations were extended with respect to the G20 summit in Toronto Ontario. All the sources I have seen indicate that ONLY FIVE country invitations were extended with respect to the G20 (to Ethiopia (then chair of NEPAD), Malawi (then chair of the African Union), the Netherlands (world's 16th largest economy), Spain (world's 9th largest economy) and Vietnam (then head of ASEAN)). Bdell555 ( talk) 06:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
See here for the host's statement about who was invited to the G20. Again, only five countries are identified. Looking at the sources that were cited for inclusion of the others, a close reading indicates the sources talked about both the G8 and G20 meetings, and the other countries' participation was noted when the sources were focusing on the G8 meeting. Bdell555 ( talk) 07:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
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 2010 G-20 Toronto summit?
Perhaps this thread can help mitigate lessons learned the hard way? -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Any of the following can be restored:
Does this paragraph enhance the quality of the article? IMO, it does not. -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Do these paragraphs enhance the quality of the article? -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the three paragraphs which were moved to the talk page contain details which are too specific. For example, the sequence of arrivals was interesting to me and you. However, this information does not enhance the overall understanding of readers who want to know about the summit as an event. In a journalistic sense, these details are relevant. Are they also necessary in this article? I don't perceive these sentences as a kind of "value added" contribution. As an alternative,
|
|
Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti ( talk) 15:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
toronto2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello. I've been working on this article since it was created and eventually managed to build up some of the key sections this article should have. I am hoping for any editors to research and write about anything else relevant to the Toronto summit. Please make sure they are similar in structure to the other G-20 summit articles. Thanks. Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 18:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyone who has eye-catching photos (leaders gathering, inside the summit meeting, protests etc.) they may have taken during the G-20 summit, please upload it. An image (or two) per section is fine but would make the article look more cleaner if the amount of images in each section not protrude into the section below it. Also it would be great if someone expanded the newly added "Agenda" article, information about the topics of discussion during the summit, what different leaders said etc. That section could even be retitled as "The summit" later on. Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 16:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
What's the "Fake Lake" I think it has something to do with the counter-constitutional suspension of parliment, the unwarranted prorogation, Harper's 3rd or 4th, the last one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.186.51 ( talk) 03:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Stupid question, but why is the Australian Deputy PM attending and not the PM? Is it to do with negotiations on forming a new cabinet? 216.164.33.62 ( talk) 01:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
What are the sources on the attendance? Becasue CNN just affirmed Lula is not attending adn this says he is. Looks like someone just added ALL heads of state. Lihaas ( talk) 20:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
A. As you may recall, the Prime Minister of Japan died shortly before the 6th G7 summit in Venice. At this point, the official Canadian website identifies anticipated participants; therefore, WP:V does allow posting who is anticipated to attend -- as I have done for the "core" participants. Tomorrow, when newspapers confirm attendance, I will move the citations from their current position to a position at the end of each line which will then encompass the named leaders. By that time, citation support will be available to verify who is representing Australia and Brazil, for example.
B. As you may not know, there has been a multi-year, slow-motion edit war abut EU particpation in the G8. IMO, WP:V encourages verification by citation rather than logic or perceived "common sense." In that context, the Canadian "official" website identified the EU here as "core" participants in the G8 meetings in Muskoka. Similarly, the "official" G20 website encompasses the EU here. For redundant clarity, this is made explicit -- "The G-20 consists of 19 countries and the European Union."
C. For this reason -- and consistent with WP:V, I moved the EU into the "core" group rather than as part of the unverified (but plausible) "regional organization" sub-category.
Does this explanation help in clarifying the several edits made in this section? -- Tenmei ( talk) 22:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Instead, I would argue that we avoid problems down the road by mirroring the official Canadian government website. In other words, re-positioning the EU particpants after the US should not matter.
However, my best guess is that this is one of those trivial points which makes a non-trivial difference. Nothing needs to be decided today, of course.
We can set this aside for now; but we will need to re-visit this after the summit ends. -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought ...? Perhaps it might be useful assume a " Rideau Hall point-of-view" ...? Consider this: The Governor-General's schedule planners use the best available information in preparing an advance list of those expected to attend an event, but there are likely to be changes. For example, those who are in charge of security remain flexible as they track the evolving data set of potential attendees.
In a sense, our Wikipedia article inevitably mirrors a congruent pattern. Some of yesterday's inline citations will prove accurate and adequate for the final draft, and some will not. When we look back at this article from the perspective of 2012, we will be able to see that our approach has captured a range of data-points across the cohort of international leaders and delegations. Ideally, there might be as many as 20 different verification composites. This approach ensures a context for a nuanced data set as the summit is re-evaluated in light of its long-term consequences.
In other words, attendance/participation of the "players" in the Toronto summit is not a captured "snapshot" of the pitch during a single World Cup soccer match.
Does this begin to describe a reasonable strategy composed of sequential tactics as applied in this one section of our article? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
per WP:EL "3.Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Sectioning within "EL's" are sign enough of too many links. I haven't removed any after the addition, but i put the tag till we can sort out what to keep and not. Lihaas ( talk) 11:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
As per my talk page, there's apparently a copyright problem with the File:450 g20 map.jpg (G-20 security zone map) on the article. I'm terrible with clearing up copyright problems, so if anyone could kindly clear that problem up (if it can be) that would be great. Otherwise, that image will be deleted. Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 18:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
To explain my latest edit:
Can we get some external links in the article? -- 194.219.131.81 ( talk) 21:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoever is working on the current protest news keep up the good work! (I'd be working on it too but caught up with some other work.) A few suggestions, a photo of one of the burning cruisers or the Black Bloc members running around? Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 23:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The claim that anarchists throw feces is a myth just like protestors spitting on soldiers coming back from vietnam. Neither are true but are reported to make protestors look bad. Corporate media should not be considered an objective point of view or a reliable source at all when dealing with reports of people who threaten corporate media's existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.190.52 ( talk) 05:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to split the protest section into its own article. Any objections? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
A number of things worked out right. This not-unimportant success needs to be underscored. Although the protestors/demonstrations aspect of this article is still a little rough, the current version is better balanced than
27th G8 summit, which perhaps offers a useful comparison ...? --
Tenmei (
talk)
14:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In addition to the ongoing Protests, the summit's Agenda and its Outcome should be worked on. Agenda should mention what ideas or issues each leader brought to the summit initially, as well as what events were scheduled by Harper and leaders to take place during the summit, and the Outcome should basically be what happened/what was said inside the summit meeting and it's aftermath. I've started writing a bit and probably continue to add more once more information flows in. Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 15:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The section about what's happening currently at the G20.... it says that some of the protesters did not keep their "peaceful protest" promise, but most of them were NOT protesters. Most of them were not even from Toronto. Notice they lack of signs, chants, or any other form of comminication. LOctopus ( talk) 19:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The summit is over, the leaders are gone/going home, police take off gas masks, protests are calming down, and it's raining...
Just a friendly reminder, along with some further developments and final touches to the Protests section, we must, must, must work on and build the Agenda and Outcome sections--the core sections of this article pertaining to the objective of the summit. Also, the article will be glorified if we could get a snapshop of all the leaders during the summit photo opportunity uploaded. With all those done, the article is essentially complete. Further tasks can be considered, such as a suggested split of the Protests section. Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 23:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It is my guess that there will be more than one version -- perhaps at the whitehouse.gov? I would expect for this particular image to be deleted in favor of a better, clearer one? -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Tenmei - I just noticed that on 2010 G-20 Toronto summit, you've been diligently adding references (which is good) but doing so without using the proper reference templates and removing the template format from pre-existing refs (which is bad). Please don't remove the template from references that already use it and, when adding new references, use one of the templates available here. Thanks. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps some of the questions raised in this thread could have been averted if I had posted an "under construction" notice in the section? Something like the following?--
Tenmei (
talk)
14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC) {:{Expand|section|Date=June 2010}}Please note work-in-progress editing -- see also
#G20 participants
Article looks like its nearly overflowing with info. It was previously suggested that the protests section could probably be split from this article. I'm sort of thinking that maybe the preparations section and probably the controversies sections may also need to be split as they have a lot of stuff. Basically creating new articles forming a series:
(In order of priority--from my perspective)
I'm currently considering these splits can help reduce this article a bit as it seems to be getting too large. Right now, the article basically looks like its focusing on what was done to host the summit, instead of what was done at the summit--the latter is what is most important and should be the main focus of this article. Once split, a short and sweet summary of those respective sections can remain in this article. Anyone support or oppose any of these moves? Eelam StyleZ ( talk) 15:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It's been widely reported that it has never been used, when in fact it has during an anti-poverty protest in 2000. Unfortunately I can't find a source because it's so trivial, but the CBC mentioned it in their coverage on the National yesterday around 6pm EST. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 22:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Just seems to be about Iran. Can we all agree that Iran is not the most human rights respecting nation, and it is sort of funny they are attacking Canada like that? There is a history there of course, with Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian Photojournalist who was killed in Iran and the continuing spat between the two on the world stage, Canada has numerous times introduced UN reoslutions condemning Iran for human right violations. Should it probably be mentioned that there is more reason to Iran's condemnations then concern for the protesters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.196.201 ( talk) 14:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing on Wikinews save hopeful search results here. Nothing in Libertapedia, Conservapedia has an article on Group of Twenty. As for Anarchopedia, all they have are the 1981 Toronto bathhouse raids and apparantly, for some reason, Avril Lavigne (both seem to be forks though) 70.54.181.70 ( talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Harpers punishing Toronto for not voting Tory? McGuinty treating Toronto citizens with similar contempt? Montrealers trashing our city? Huh? 205.189.194.208 ( talk) 22:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/29/g20-chief-fence571.html
Toronto's chief of police Bill Blair announced Tuesday that there never really was a 5 meter rule. I am far too angry about this to update the article in a non-biased way :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setitup ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The core participants of an international summits need to be identified; and a table format presents that information in summary fashion. The table scans more easily and more efficiently than prose or a list. Format does convey meaning.
The distinction between members and non-members is perhaps best presented by distinguishing a core table. I'm persuaded that one table is needed. In the same way that the infobox is a recurrent element in related articles, I would envisage the core participants table as a repeated element in all G20 summit articles. I haven't formed a view about whether one or more additional tables are good or preferable.
My work with others in developing this article causes me to re-think the value of tables in contexts of other international summits. I'm persuaded that it is probably a good idea to introduce core participant tables in articles about the G8 summits, the G-15 summits, etc.
Perhaps further discussion isn't necessary; but if so, this becomes a first step. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see congruent formatting in these tables:
This is step in a constructive direction. The format can be tweaked at any point in the future. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
ASEAN has been added to the infobox and to the tables on this page. A credible source verified ASEAN attendance at three summits; and this justifies including both the organization and its representative(s) in our article. ASEAN now appears in the tables at 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit and 2009 G-20 London summit. ASEAN is also incorporated in the table at 2010 G-20 Seoul summit.
However, this doesn't mean that ASEAN actually had a " place at the table." (compare phrase "at the table" used in Sheila Whyte. "The Protesters: Who's who at the summits," CBC News. June 9, 2010; excerpt, " 'At the Table' ... The largest and most powerful group of NGOs is a network of about 60 organizations—or other networks—meeting in Canada under this banner.")
I propose removing ASEAN from the infobox and from the tables.
My guess is that there is a one-to-one correlation between the list of 20+5 here and the seating at the specially constructed "table" featured in the photo at the right. In addition -- if you enlarge and study this photo -- you will see that there appear to be more than 25 seated at this central circle ... and there are others in the room as well.
In the absence of more specific data, it may be reasonable to limit what is added to our small infobox. One possible solution is to remove ASEAN from the infobox unless new information consistent with WP:RS and WP:V confirms that ASEAN is included in this center circle? Of course, ASEAN remains in the article text -- just not in the featured position in the infobox in the top right corner.
This rationale may affect others in attendance at this G-20 summit? at past G-20 summits? at future G-20 summits?
Perhaps we may need to identify another category of attendees?
ASEAN may have been an observer? I would propose tentative "observer" status for ASEAN -- and for any others who have not yet been added. In other words, I would propose establishing "observer" as a default in the absence of other credible data?
This issue is not urgent; but, it is worth pondering. All issues can be revisited in conjunction with 2010 G-20 Seoul summit. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I moved some text in the outcome section to better locations. However, I found no proper place for the text below. Feel free to reinsert it if you know where. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 08:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I've posted the update tag for the Outcome section, as it has not been cleaned up nor does it have the latest information on what was decided upon during the G-20 summit by the leaders. Would be great if someone could get that covered (sources can be found from the US White House website or the Government of Canada G-20 website listed under External links in the article). More sources from Google News under the appropriate search term can be found if necessary. EelamStyleZ Discuss 20:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?
| ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?
|
---|
|
|
|
|
|
Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?
|
---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some vandalism, but no recent edit-warring, so stability is not an issue |
|
|
|
I don't think there are any problems with this article that would make it deserve a fail during a GAN. I'm hoping someone could reassess this article and see if there are still any problems with this article that prevent it from becoming a good article. EelamStyleZ ( talk) 11:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
In addition, I would hope to see comments which identify what is "good" as well as what is "bad".
I would expect this GA assessment process could become a kind of template for expediting the assessment of other summit-related articles like 2010 G-20 Toronto summit preparations and 2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests. -- Tenmei ( talk) 14:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, and Senegal were NOT invited to participate in the G20 summit. They were invited to participate in the 36th G8 summit (along with Colombia, Haiti, and Jamaica) in Huntsville Ontario. These 7 countries should accordingly be removed from the list UNLESS someone can point to sources here that indicate that official invitations were extended with respect to the G20 summit in Toronto Ontario. All the sources I have seen indicate that ONLY FIVE country invitations were extended with respect to the G20 (to Ethiopia (then chair of NEPAD), Malawi (then chair of the African Union), the Netherlands (world's 16th largest economy), Spain (world's 9th largest economy) and Vietnam (then head of ASEAN)). Bdell555 ( talk) 06:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
See here for the host's statement about who was invited to the G20. Again, only five countries are identified. Looking at the sources that were cited for inclusion of the others, a close reading indicates the sources talked about both the G8 and G20 meetings, and the other countries' participation was noted when the sources were focusing on the G8 meeting. Bdell555 ( talk) 07:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
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 2010 G-20 Toronto summit?
Perhaps this thread can help mitigate lessons learned the hard way? -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Any of the following can be restored:
Does this paragraph enhance the quality of the article? IMO, it does not. -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Do these paragraphs enhance the quality of the article? -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the three paragraphs which were moved to the talk page contain details which are too specific. For example, the sequence of arrivals was interesting to me and you. However, this information does not enhance the overall understanding of readers who want to know about the summit as an event. In a journalistic sense, these details are relevant. Are they also necessary in this article? I don't perceive these sentences as a kind of "value added" contribution. As an alternative,
|
|
Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti ( talk) 15:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
toronto2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).