Talk:2008 G-20 Washington summit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Business (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Economics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject International relations (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This page will soon be much more active. I just wanted to get a stub started. IanWright (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC) need criticism.rather than global institution we need to go back to govt issued money and full reserve banking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


I don't believe that self-published sources from the LaRouche movement should be used to assert that he created the proposal that these politicians are debating, or even that their proposal is the same as his. Further, even if we did mention him in the article he should not be the centerpiece of this article. His "New Bretton Woods" proposal is covered already in Views of Lyndon LaRouche#New Bretton Woods. We can add a "see also" to refer readers there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a section called "Previous proposals"? --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
But it isn't a notable proposal. Further, it would confuse different proposals that merely share a similar name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
On what grounds do you declare that it is not notable? Tremonti is Economics Minister of Italy, and he endorses it. That would seem to establish its notability. There are clearly different proposals, or counter-proposals, with the same name. The article should make this clear. But to say that the proposal first came up in 2001 is clearly misleading. --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It was mentioned by a government minister. He endorses having a conference to discuss international finance, but the article also says that he's a Keynesian.(Or at least that's what it may say - I don't read Italian.) "New Bretton Woods" is a catchall phrase that covers any number of different concepts. Knowing human nature, there've probably been folks calling for a "new" Bretton Woods ever since the "old" one was finalized. The purpose of this article is to cover the recent calls for a conference on international finance. The LaRouche proposal is already covered in the "Views..." article, which I'm happy to link to from this article in the "See also" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm as shocked as the next person, but the LaRouche connection to this topic appears to be iron-clad. It's not a "mention" -- the title of the damn article is "The Bretton Woods II of LaRouche and Tremonti," for pete's sake. And you fellows know very well that if this were an occasion to add something negative about LaRouche to some article, you'd be champing at the bit, so read WP:SAUCE and get over it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall suggesting adding material about LaRouche, positive or negative, to articles that aren't in category:LaRouche movement. As I've said before, I have no objection to adding a link to LaRouche's proposal. But this proposal is not LaRouche's proposal - it just has a similar name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
There were several proposals, including LaRouche's (according to Tremonti,) debated at the European meeting, all going by the name "New Bretton Woods." In your opinion, how do we determine which one is the "real" one? --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It depends on a consensus of editors, but a line like, "Tremonti, Italian Finance Minister, said his interest in a new international agreement was due to the work of LaRouche" might be appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat speaks of the Corriere article, saying "one off comment in local paper is not encyclopedia quality." Now according to the Wikipedia article Corriere della Sera, it became in the 1920s "the most widely read newspaper in Italy, maintaining its importance and influence to this day." The cited material is not an "off comment," but the central point of the article, which focusses on the views of Italy's Economics Minister, hardly an inconsequential person, and recognized worldwide as a leading proponent of the Bretton Woods II concept. And he says that in his view, LaRouche is the original author of the Bretton Woods II proposal, which is, after, the subject of the article we're discussing. So please tell me, what is it about this material that is "not encyclopedia quality"? --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for saying that Tremonti is "recognized worldwide as the leading proponent of the Bretton Woods II concept"? Are there articles in the U.K., Germany, or the U.S. that say so? What source says that LaRouche ever mentioned something called "Bretton Woods II"? Do any of the proposals among leading statesman include LaRouche's core proposal, a new Treaty of Westphalia?[1] Proposals that don't include the same elements as LaRouche's proposal aren't LaRouche's proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't write "the leading proponent," I wrote "a leading proponent," and I think that this article[2] is sufficient to establish that. The article in Corriere is entitled "The Bretton Woods II of LaRouche and Tremonti," which seems clear to me. As far as your other questions are concerned, you seem to be questioning whether Tremonti understands the fine points of the LaRouche proposal. I can't speak to that -- all I would say is that Tremonti announced, unambiguously, that he supports LaRouche's plan, and as I understand it, our job here is just to report what has appeared in reliable sources. --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
A little sophistic there, GU. Tremonti published a book earlier this year which included a proposal for a new bretton woods. Nowhere in that book, or in discussions of it, is any mention of Larouche, or any hint that there is anything Larouche inspired involved. As to be expected, Larouche propaganda began disseminating the unsubstantiated notion that one can "recognize (Larouche's) influence in Tremonti's proposals. Take note of the typical propaganda ploy. Then we have a purposefully deceptive headline "Tremonti Places LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods at Center of Debate in Italy" in an article which itself admits "Tremonti’s formulation of the New Bretton Woods echoes that of LaRouche." Hmm, from the active verb "places" in the headline to the slippery "echoes." Interesting bit of journalism!. From there we have the supposed Larouche-Tremonti connection being largely an online creation of the Larouche propaganda machine. Finally (perhaps) we have the oneoff article in which Tremonti says the idea of a new BW had been spread/pushed by Larouche, indicating that he (tremonti) wasn't the first one to use the term. Zero evidence is given that Tremonti's proposal and Larouche's proposal have any connection beyond the common terminology, and the sentence saying Termonti "appreciates" Larouche's writing, giving no indication of any connection between their respective "New Bretton Woods" proposals--which, please note, is what this article is about.
So if the Larouche spin machine want to manipulate the internet to spread this invented connection between Tremonti's NBW and Larouche's, knock yourselves out. But not on Wikipedia. Do not revert this back without a clear indication has this manipulation does not violate WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and perhaps WP:BLP by intimating that Tremonti was inspired by the ideas of a fringe figure without solid proof for the intimation). Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, Boodles, how would you parse the title of the Corriere article, "The Bretton Woods II of LaRouche and Tremonti"? Is Corriere della Sera part of the awesome LaRouche spin machine? --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it's a "local paper." --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
[e/c] I don't see where the FT article says that Tremonti is "recognized worldwide as a leading proponent of the Bretton Woods II concept". That seems like quite an extrapolation. In any case, it appears that broader coverage of this proposed conference is filling out the story so I don't think we need to devote much space to one finance minister's inspiration. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of Italian article[edit]

I see 208 Google News results for 'tremonti "bretton woods" -larouche"[3]. And I see 228 when I allow mention of LaRouche with 'tremonti "Bretton woods"'[4]. Where did those extra sources come from? CounterPunch- bad enough, EIR- awful... then a multitude of LaRouche fundraising 'Solidarity Parties' worldwide.[5] Nobody cares about LaRouche. John Nevard (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

On another note, are those who seek to add the extended reference to the Italian newspaper confident that the link in question is, at the very minimum, a piece of original news reporting rather than an editorial or opinion article? John Nevard (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It was the lead story in the "finance" section on October 20. --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
GU, here's how I "parse" it as part of the "LaRouche spin machine." The Corriere article was one single, not very in depth article in the world. Then, if you Google Tremonti and Larouche, with or without New Bretton Woods, you get somewhere way down that small article, and the other 99% is Larouche propaganda sites trying to falsely create an impression that Tremonti endorses Larouches plan, that Tremonti got the plan from Larouche, assorted deceptive nonasense like "Tremonti Places LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods at Center of Debate in Italy", bla bla bla. That's how I parse it as part of the "LaRouche spin machine." Any questions? Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative title[edit]

I'm seeing a lot of descriptions of proposals of this sort as a "New Bretton Woods". Compare Google News results for N.B.W in mainstream sources[6] to results for BWII[7] and BW2[8]. Accordingly, I'm redirecting 'New Bretton Woods' to this article. John Nevard (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


How does this avoid being more than a simple neologism? This in turn means it may not be something more than a passing phenemenon. If, and when, something concrete comes out it will, in all likelihood, have a new name. The Washington Pact? The Washington Compromise? The Washington Treaty II? Or another compact/treaty name. In the meanwhile, the little documentation for the term alone can be tacked onto Bretton Woods the same axis of evil talks of the alternatives. Lihaas (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested alternative name[edit]

To avoid coining a new name, what is stopping this article from being moved to, off the top of my head, "2008 G20 Summit" ? doktorb wordsdeeds 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds better than the existing title, which I haven't seen used in the media coverage of the meeting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

I cleaned the article (mainly structure, grammatical tense) and moved it from Bretton Woods II to 2008 G-20 Leaders Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy. Haven't done something on the English Wikipedia for quite a while, but couldn't believe in which poor state this important article was. Hope I did not insert to much language mistakes. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have undertaken further clean up following the meeting itself. Perhaps the article could be further enhanced by some of the less successful aspects of the event. Have also put a redirect from World Economic Summit.-Ipigott (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Move to 2008 G-20 summit[edit]

There already was G20-summit in 2008 (in Sao Paolo), this irregular summit is the second one, so you should move it back or to for instance to 2008 G-20 summit in Washington. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Info box[edit]

This is certainly a good idea but I note that the date is missing (although the edit page shows an unsuccessful attempt was made to add it as November 15 to 16, 2008). According to the White House site, the dates of the meeting were November 14-15, 2008. I suggest these must be correct. See header on [9] -Ipigott (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I forgot to account for the fact that infoboxes are half stupid most of the time. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 16:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bretton Woods II[edit]

Hi , this is a great article but while the Washington G20 was very successful in achieving agreement for the concerted use of Keynesian stimulus plans, it didn't move us forward in terms of reform of global institutions a la Bretton Woods. Prominent calls for Bretton Woods II are still very much in evidence as of March 2009. Considering the significance of this subject i thought it might be nice to have an article more focussed on calls the new Bretton Woods. Some editors don't seem to like potential neologisms so i've called the article International Monetary Systems which makes it logical to have a helpfull a history section putting BW II in context with the older monetary orders. I hope you guys don't mind if I link the Bretton Woods II redirect to the new article. There's a lot of chat in the press about clamping down on tax havens, further boosts to global demand etc, but in serious circles the talks seems to be all about Bretton Woods II. Its all im hearing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


Were there any protests during the 2008 summit, like the ones in 2009? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)