Talk:36th G8 summit

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Potentially useful, but maybe not?

A number of news stories are likely to develop as Canada and the local community prepare for the G8 summit in 2010. I anticipate most of these developing stories can be incorporated in the main article across the span of months, and many -- indeed most -- will be deleted as 2010 approaches.

Some articles are going to seem relevant -- maybe, but not quite "encyclopedic" without more to develop the story in context, e.g.,

I wonder if this slow-growing list will turn out to be a good idea? --Tenmei (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

The image Image:IEA logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsville 2010

This summit's distinctive logo has changed since it was uploaded in March 2009 -- see "Local organizing plans" sub-section. Perhaps the story of the logo change could be an enhancement of this article? --Tenmei (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-inventing the wheel

What was learned during the process of developing this article about the 37th G8 summit? My guess is that the experience of editors who work on this article can be applicable in other contexts? --Tenmei 04:19, 1 March 2009

I noticed some vandalism on this page

In regards to the "Indpendent documentary" header under the "Citizens' responses and authorities' counter-responses".

It read: "In December 2008, two independent filmmakers from northern Germany began introducing themselves and interviewing people in the Huntsville tit rash. Their plans include banging your mum , making a documentary on the preparations for the upcoming G8 Summit. They also anticipate licking the queens fanny on the impact and after-effects of the event."

After verifying the footnote and finding a Google cache of the story which has since been removed or had the link changed on the original site, I confirmed that these phrases are vandalism "tit rash", "banging your mum," and "licking the queens fanny".

After posting this I will promptly remove these phrases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konanda (talk • contribs) 03:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EU participation

There is a slow-motion edit war about one aspect of 36th G8 summit.

Collapsed argument and details

Beginning with the 3rd G7 summit in London in 1977, the President of the European Commission or his successor President of the European Union has been a formal participant in successive annual events -- see "EU and the G8". In each article about G7/G8 summits, Lucie-Marie has deleted text about EU participation. These serial reverts ignored hyperlinks in the supporting inline citations which were also deleted. Despite attempts to engage discussion here, no consensus has been achieved. Her opinions here have merit, but they remain only opinions. No cited source supports these reverts. Our core policies require something different. WP:V seems relevant because "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."


Group of Seven or G7+1
Group of Eight or G8+1


A slow-motion edit war is worrisome; but discussion can be constructive -- see Muskoka 2010: G8 members

The edit history of 36th G8 summit records an unhelpful pattern:

  1. diff 17:40, 9 July 2008 Lucy-marie (6,628 bytes) (→Composition of summit leaders)
  2. diff 16:48, 20 July 2008 Lucy-marie (10,987 bytes) (→Leaders at the summit: EU is invited and could be left off the invite list so it is not a oermenet member)
  3. diff 21:54, 10 April 2009 Lucy-marie m (24,339 bytes) (→Leaders at the summit)
  4. diff 19 March 2010 JLogan (24,837 bytes) (EU is a permanent participant, not merely a guest. check the main page)

The same pattern is seen at 37th G8 summit:

  1. diff 21:54, 10 April 2009 Lucy-marie m (12,394 bytes) (→Leaders at the summit)
  2. diff 09:28, 19 March 2010 JLogan (12,628 bytes) (→Leaders at the summit: EU is permanent participant, not just a guest)

This thread may help resolve the issues, or it may help bring clearer focus. --Tenmei (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not flying into North Bay -- in the lead?

Does this: "The leaders of the G8 will be flying into Toronto Pearson International Airport, despite $10 million in upgrades to North Bay/Jack Garland Airport in North Bay, Ontario, which will not be used." really belong in the lead? RomaC (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it to the body, details are all still there. Feel free to revert if RS are treating airport choice as a major aspect of the event. RomaC (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many Agenda sections!

Why do we need all of: Issues, Priorities, and Schedule and Agenda sections? The first sentence of Issues uses the word "Agenda". Unless I'm missing something, I'm going to merge these sections into an encompassing Agenda section. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 05:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a simple issue. There is nothing "wrong" with the edit here.
This thread's rhetorical question has a non-rhetorical answer which develops from a slightly modified perspective. Could it be that this question arises because the question's point-of-view is too narrowly focused.
It is entirely correct and reasonable to construe this one article and its "issues" + "priorities" + "schedule" + "agenda" sections as overlapping. The requirements of this article's topic are best addressed by "fuzzy logic." While this would be inappropriate in many other articles, the use of "fuzzy logic" is not unhelpful this one.
Perhaps these evident redundancies will seem less like a flaw when we re-examine critical comments about this article. Do the obvious questions seem different when this article is correctly identified as part of a series which has unfolded across a span of decades? Yes, this article is about a specific event which took place in a calendar time-frame which overlapped 2010 FIFA World Cup, but it is also the 36th in a cohort of data-capture points (a) which extend across the span of four decades and (b) which is now likely to extend into the future beyond 2013.
I think I understand the premise of this thread. I take the point, of course; but it begs the question: "How is this distinguishable from 'less is more'?" --Tenmei (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity with G20

This article has a lot of overlap in scope with 2010 G-20 Toronto summit. This is sort of unavoidable because the two summits took place so close together. Especially in the Agenda, Preparations, and Response sections there will be a lot of similarity because the agendas are similar and protesters are often targeting both organizations. I don't think that a merge is appropriate in this situation, but should we break some of these sections into separate articles that cover both meetings? Some sources are covering both these events together and I've been finding myself having to cover the same content and articles twice, and I don't think that's the best way to handle it. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 06:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a simple issue. It bears repeating for emphasis — there is nothing "wrong" with the edit here.
The nest of inter-related questions has a context. Speculation about the continuing relevance and utility of G8 summits has been a perennial topic. The subject has been explicit since the Gleneagles summit which institutionalized the concept of G8+G5. In this context, please consider the genesis of the Group of 5 and BRIC.
In the months since the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, there has been an international debate about whether the G20 would/should displace the G8? You may recall that some in the press projected that this would be the last and final G8 summit; but this was rejected at Huntsville and Toronto -- see, e.g., President Obama's post-G20 press conference, and also,
" ... the G8 leaders agreed in reaffirming the group's essential and continuing role in international affairs.<:ref>"Group of Eight Concludes Muskoka Summit, Reaffirms Own Essential Role," People's Daily (Beijing). June 27, 2010; excerpt, "...issuing a declaration about its shared views and approaches for major global challenges, and reaffirmed its own essential role in international affairs."</ref>
Yes, there is overlap. Yes, there are obvious redundancies. However, this article is not the appropriate venue for the kind of original research which inevitably informs any process which attempts to reconcile, consolidate or rectify these precise differences and similarities.
This is a little difficult to parse and to explain concisely. The discussion this thread initiates is important and needed.
In this different context, please reconsider my comments in thread above here. --Tenmei (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be considered original research to cover these two summits together because so many news sources are covering them together. Regardless of trends in importance of various groups of nations, it's certainly true that there is significant overlap between the circumstances and agendas specifically of the G8 and G20 summits this year. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 21:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is overlap, and there are many sources which marry G8/G20 or G8-G20. For example,
In addition, it apears likely that the French might replicate the Toronto model in 2011. Sarkozy's brief remarks could portend that G8 and G20 summits will be scheduled back-to-back in adjacent locations on the French Riviera. This is a subject which is changing in unexpected ways. Is it not prudent and reasonable for someone -- anyone -- to mention that this subject is a bit tricky now and in the foreseeable future.
I'm sorry that my remarks appear to have been construed as advocacy for a kind of either/or dichotomy. Let me draw attention to the two initial sentences in my paragraphs above:
This is not a simple issue. It bears repeating for emphasis — there is nothing "wrong" with the edit here.
I encourage a slightly wider focus. My point was a mild "tweak." In different words, I was only trying to elicit a heightened awareness of meaningful consequences which include unintended consequences. --Tenmei (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not plagiarism

It is axiomatic that the words in any article may be re-written; however, a single edit summary is troubling:

The adjective plagiarized is not obscure, nor is it an insignificant allegation. Please do compare the posted text with the cited source from which it came:

A. Posted sentence supported by inline citation with embedded hyperlink:
The G8 summit brings leaders together not so they can dream up quick fixes, but to talk and think about them together.[1]
B. Linked citation excerpt:
"... the meeting offers an opportunity to bring these issues, and others like them, into focus. These problems will not be solved, but the G-8 can get the ball rolling. It unites leaders not so they can dream up quick fixes to complex problems, but to talk and think about them together. It brings important issues to the fore for leaders, as well as the people at home. These problems will not be solved at the summit, but the G-8 can get the ball rolling."

I'm discouraged by the unexpected word "plagiarized". These factors are relevant. If not, why not?

  • 1. This sentence was verified by a properly formated inline citation.
  • 2. An embedded hyperlink made it easy to read the full text of the published article which informed the idea which was incorporated in this article.
  • 3. The structure of parallel dichotomy illustrates an analytical pattern which is useful in the process of parsing aspects of any brief, international conference event. In other words, the implied tactics and strategy published in this Forbes article express a valid point which is open-ended and prospectively useful.
  • 4. The specific phrases contained the same words are emphasized above in bold, but no single sentence has been copied word-for-word.

This is not plagiarized text. Rather, this excerpt illustrates the kind of work which enhances the quality of our Wikipedia project.

This small contribution to the quality of this article contains nothing which deserves derision, contempt or complaint. There is nothing here which earns discouragement.

Use of the term "plagiarism" is laden with harmful connotations; and this overshadows the substance of the section in which this tempest in a teapot arises. It overwhelms what was otherwise helpful in this specific context. --Tenmei (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Feldman, Adam. "What's Wrong With The G-8," Forbes (New York). July 7, 2008.

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 36th G8 summit?

Perhaps this thread can help mitigate lessons learned the hard way? --Tenmei (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future tense.

For some reason, almost a year later parts of this article are still written as if the summit has yet to occur. I'll be working on it slowly, so please be mindful if you need to revert that you don't undo the grammar fixes. Thanks, e Robert-Houdin 03:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober-houdin (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 36th G8 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:

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) 21:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 36th G8 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:36th_G8_summit"