Talk:G-20 major economies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.
 
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 Organizations (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please 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.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
 

Reaction/Consequences[edit]

Why is there no reaction or consequences section in this article? Every G20 conference over the last decade has seen substantial, documented protests and demonstrations rallying against globalization. It seems this page should at least have some sort of documentation of this. In b4 wikizionist deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkjimi (talkcontribs) 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I second this. I just came here trying to figure out what the G20 was (because for some weird reason all the news articles about the protests say nothing about what G20 is) and I was kinda surprised to see no mention at all of any protests. In my opinion this article is not keeping with the unbiased standards of Wikipedia articles to not even mention that there have been numerous protests in the past. The protests are obviously important to a lot of people and should at least have some mention on the page. I certainly came here hoping to find out more information about who/what/why and found none!! All other pages about organizations that have been protested against have news about the protests on their pages.... Why is this one exempt from such news? Lab Dragon (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no "unbiased standard of wikipedia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.113.198 (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Map[edit]

There are some areas wrongly painted: Balearic Islands are in dark-blue but they belong to Spain, which is light-blue. Almost all the islands in the Aegean Sea belong to Greece, not Turkey, so they should be painted in light-blue. Cyprus is an EU state, so it should be painted in light blue because it is neither in the G20 nor does it belong to Turkey. The Islas Canarias belong to Spain. The Açores belong to Portugal. The Falklands belong to the UK, Nouvelle Caledonie belongs to France. Same goes for Martinique, Guadeloupe, the la Guyane Française etc etc. All these territories should be painted accordingly. 3 june 2007, 16:02 UTC

you are totally wrong, Aegean sea is not a land so it does not belogn to any country, nor Turkey, neither Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.175.211 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

They said "almost all the Islands' in the Aegean Sea" not the sea itself. 86.147.65.57 (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Who picked the photo of Barack Obama with the cowboy hat on it, it looks absolutely ridiculous and out of character for him - a photo should be chosen that actually embodies his common appearance (sans hat) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.175.238 (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing Countries[edit]

These countries are the regional powers and I think this list is missing Spain and Egypt. --Spain is not a regional power, it is too small and population wise, not very large or important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phead128 (talkcontribs) 05:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not being bias[edit]

Calling certain people "fatcats" is a VALUE-JUDGEMENT, and hence is not allowed.

Claiming that said organization is ruining the third world without citations (let alone citations from unbiased sources) is unsubstantiated, and therefore personal opinion, and wikipedia does not allow that. (Madrone 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

NPOV: Influence Section[edit]

Removing massive amounts of biased and rants and trying to summarize its points in a "Criticism section" If ppeople add criticims please CITE YOUR SOURCES, as most criticisms tend to be PERSONAL OPINIONS or a soapbox. Wikipedia does not allow Original Research (saying what you think basically) (Madrone 06:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC))


G20 summits[edit]

Why not give details about each G20 summit. The one in Ottawa in 2001 was very eventful but does thsis belong on this page or should there be a separate page for each summit?--Fredmaack 08:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to do it. --Cat out 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of countries[edit]

Is something missing? I only see 19 nations. --Cat out 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • For some reason, both Argentina and Australia are listed as 1. on the list. SKC 02:38 (UTC)

"the finance ministers and central bank governors of the G7, 14 other key countries, and the European Union Presidency (if not a G7 member)" The number 14 should be 12. The G7 has 7 members plus 12 other key countries and the EU to make a total of 20 not 22.--Raprmiddleton (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Norway[edit]

It is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but not within the EU. Has anybody got an explanation as to why its not on the list?

  • The most literal answer would be that it's not on the list because it's not in the G-20, in the same way that a list of All-Star sports players might only list those formally selected for the All-Star Game (disclaiming, of course, any implication that larger economies are "better"). Going a bit further, I would agree that it's "one of the wealthiest countries", just not one of the 19 largest economies. As of 2005, it's listed at #25: List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal). Kime1R 01:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To all nationalists from Norway: your country ranks as 40th in GDP PPP - that is less than the Czech Republic ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyst (talkcontribs) 11:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Czech Republic : Population 10 million Norway : Population 4.8 million.

Compare GDP per capita instead.

85.165.91.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC).

The G20 aims to represent the most invfluencial economies in the world that represent a great share of the world's GDP - Norway is simply too small. It might have a high standard of living, but its < 5m people are relatively unimportant in the sense of global economic reform. The same applies for other nations with a high standard of living whos representation would be awkward, like the Vatican or Monaco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.37.222 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Population too small and not a very large country without much influence, much less economic or political influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phead128 (talkcontribs) 05:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Spain[edit]

Spain is now part of G20! http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9ZoaZ2MQ-5049sITpbDliMxPn_Q —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindrain1 (talkcontribs) 21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081114-5.html says that Spain is representing EU... Rad vsovereign (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when Spain is a "permanent guest?" Rockies77 (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia?[edit]

Saudi Arabia is mentioned as a member in the article text but is missing in the image. Please reconcile. --74.132.201.173 22:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone has fixed it. 203.129.139.252 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is now mentioned as Western Europe country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.52.82 (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Norway?[edit]

Norway is at the number 25th of largest economy's in the world... Thats more then several countries on the list... Why aren't Norway at the list?

25 Norway 295,672

26 Indonesia 281,264

28 South Africa 239,419 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.226.234 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Again, this page doesn't describe "the 20 largest economies in the world", it describes "the G20 industrial nations", a specific group of 19 countries + the EU. Norway isn't on the list because it's not in the G20. The real question, then, is why isn't Norway in the G20. Taking from the G20 website:

What are the criteria for G-20 membership?

In a forum such as the G-20, it is particularly important for the number of countries involved to be restricted and fixed to ensure the effectiveness and continuity of its activity. There are no formal criteria for G-20 membership and the composition of the group has remained unchanged since it was established. In view of the objectives of the G-20, it was considered important that countries and regions of systemic significance for the international financial system be included. Aspects such as geographical balance and population representation also played a major part.

As of the current wikipedia List of countries by GDP (nominal), Indonesia is a larger economy by both the IMF and World Bank measurements. It's also the 4th most populous nation in the world, and one of only two Australia/Oceania countries in the G20.
South Africa is the largest economy in Africa, and the only African nation in the G20.
In each of these cases, one may suspect that the "geographical balance" factor indeed "played a major part", and "population representation" may have also influenced the inclusion of Indonesia.
In contrast, Norway is about number 14 on the List_of_European_countries_by_GDP and 26 on the List_of_European_countries_by_population. Considering that the G20 has 4-6 other individual European countries (depending on how you count Russia and Turkey) and the EU in it, it would seem that Europe is fairly well represented in the G20.
Furthermore, considering that Switzerland has a larger economy than Norway, and is also not in the EU, it would seem that they would be higher up on the waiting list, if you will, than Norway.
Kime1R 01:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Membership of the G20 is determined by being a member of the G20, nothing more. The members are "systemically important industrialized and developing economies"[1]. All the members are large, but they aren't the 20 largest nations. More importantly, they aren't all industrial nations, in fact, they aren't even all nations. I suggest this page is misnamed. Yes, there is a different G20 that is specifically for developing nations, but that doesn't change the nature of this G20. Following the usual rules for disambiguation, I suggest this page be moved to G20 (Group of economies). Regards, Ben Aveling 10:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

2010: Auckland, New Zealand[edit]

Why would New Zealand host the talks being as they aren't a member? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brob (talkcontribs) 02:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


The proposed new name for this article is Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, to reflect the name of the group used on its official website at http://www.g20.org/. The only other obvious alternate, G-20, already exists as a redirect to a disambig. Thanks. 67.101.7.221 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

  • Oppose common name is G20 or G-20, so G20 (something) should be the form taken. I suggest G20 (top economies). 76.66.198.46 (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree completely that G20 or G-20 would be the search term someone would use to get to this article. Both are treated as disambigs right now, which suggests that other editors don't think of this economic organization first. So one approach is to label the article with a longer and unique title, and ensure that searching for G20 or G-20 gets you here in one click. If there is consensus that this article is the dominant meaning of both G20 and G-20 (not just during the Global financial crisis of 2008 or during their usual annual meetings), then we could name this article G20 or G-20, and create G20 (disambiguation) and/or G-20 (disambiguation) pages for the current list of G20s. Thanks. 68.167.252.47 (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC).
  • Oppose. Common name is G-20. Perhaps rename it to that, similarly to G7? Unsure whether we can settle on a similar punctuation, or even whether it matters. Andrewa (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Like other members have said. The common name is G-20. On the India page, it's full name is the Republic of India, but the page itself is called India, and it just says in the introductory paragraph that it's official name is the Republic of India. We could just say in the introductory paragraph that the G20's official name is the Group of Of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors. Deavenger (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
IMHO votes in opposition should clarify if they want to
It may be hard to make this call since the G-20 is meeting this weekend but is otherwise rarely in the news. Thanks. 68.167.252.47 (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC).
Agree that there's a lot more to discuss, but we also need to think of those who do the legwork at WP:RM. A request has been listed there, and someone eventually needs to close it. My feeling is that this specific request could now be closed citing the snowball clause, and we should then have a more general discussion here as to what to do. Then, if either admin help is needed to do it or if it's controversial enough to want a formal process (or both), that's the time to go back to WP:RM. Andrewa (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Support, it's a more cumbersome name, but the fact is that this is an encyclopedia, and we should be accurate. If the official page has that name, that is the accurate one. Wikidea 13:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
So, you're suggesting we ignore the official Wikipedia policy on this? You might find Wikipedia:official names helpful to clarify this. Andrewa (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It is only my opinion, that if the official title on the website is as it is said, then we should go with that. Official policy will support both that and whatever prevalent usage is. If you really wanted to go with prevalent usage, then it wouldn't be "G20 major economies", but simply "G20", wouldn't it? But I'm really not too fussed. :) Wikidea 18:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... WP:NC states Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The policy has been considerably watered down recently (this used to be the nutshell summary, now it's in the text and the summary is a lot vaguer), but not quite enough to support preferring the official title on the website to the commonly used term. Andrewa (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Leave it alone. This article was previously named "G20 Industrial nations", which it isn't since South Africa is not industrialized and the EU is not a nation. The G20 major economies is the correct and best terminology that should be used for this article. "major economies" describes these economies best - they are not all countries or industrialized but have a significant influence role or are of strategic importance in the world economy. Using G-20 directly conflicts with the G20 developing nations, which is also named G-20 officially. Just like the G20 developing nations is NOT the official name, but rather used to distinguish from other G20s that exist in a manner that is short, organized and representitive. Lakshmix (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It should be G-20, with the "-". (With an {{template:otheruses see G20}} at the top. G-20 (Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors) would be acceptable, but no reason not to use the shorter name.) Which means G20 (the disambig) can stay where it is. No drama. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to move it to another title. There is so much variations between the different usages across the media and other experts that it would be impossible to settle on a correct name. --Patrick (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave it alone. I totally agree with you Patrick, the current title is more than good enough to refer to this organization. There are too many "G20 group of economies" that it simply doesn't make much sense to me. The current title is correct and precise. No change necessary. Wondergirls (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggestion[edit]

Why not convert the list of countries into a table, showing GDP, Annual Exports and Annual Imports.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:G20 Melbourne meeting room.jpg[edit]

The image File:G20 Melbourne meeting room.jpg 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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

so Spain is or isn't a member?[edit]

The map shows Spain in light blue (being represented by he EU but not on its own), but its listed twice as a member. So is Spain a member of the G-20 or not (I have no idea)? Somebody should explain its situation in the article if its membership is "special". --Taraborn (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is not [2]. I'll fix the reference. --Taraborn (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This is now addressed explicitly by the addition of the lede list sentence, see new section below, this date. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Article is not about the meetings[edit]

This article is about the economies. Discussion of the meetings is at best peripheral if not entirely off topic. Discussion of plans to hold protests against future meetings is completely out of place. Using this article for that purpose can only be construed as a deliberate violation of WP:SOAP.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • While I would agree that this is not the page to post/discuss things about specific meetings, one could argue that this article CAN be about the meetings as a whole. Do in part to the fact that this is the page for organization that holds the meetings, and there is mention that they do hold the meetings on the page. Therefore news that is not meeting specific but pertains to the meetings as a whole, can and should be included on this page. Lab Dragon (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

unbalanaced[edit]

LeadSongDog, I don't understand why you are deleting any information about protests at a G20 meeting. If you are being balanced, then you should not only link to the official London website, but also, major counter-summit events. It is not okay to link to G20 propaganda (the UK treasury pamphlet, their website), and eliminate balancing information? Surely this balance just adds to the richness of the article, and doesn't take away from it? If people want to move the London summit / protest information to another page, that's fine, but then, please also remove or move the pro-G20 propaganda from the page such as the pamphlet, and london summit website.

--Jonnieo (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I replied to your similar question at my talk.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


By linking to the G20 website, and their pamphlets, you are also promoting a viewpoint. So linking to both sides is mandated by NPV. Now, what would make more sense is for their to be a WP article about the Summit itself. But until an editor creates that page, there is no other place for it.

As a compromise, I can move both the balancing information to be under the London meeting section. Then, when someone creates an entry for the London meeting (currently a backlog), then both the official pamphlet and website and the balancing PV can be moved to this entry. Is that reasonable?

--Jonnieo (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, it's not me that linked to those things, though I did clean up the links a bit. What backlog?LeadSongDog (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

To attempt to address this, I've created a London Summit page, using Trashyrambo's suggestion below. I have also removed much of the hyperbole around the information on the climate camp protest (not added by me btw). The links to the G20 positive propaganda have also been included. I would suggest that if people are happy with this, then the London section of this page can be deleted (since it is now in the London summit page). --Jonnieo (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

G20 London Summit[edit]

The next Summit date has been announced for April 2, 2009. This Summit probably merits its own page (eg 2009 G-20 London summit). I have sketched out a possible start on my Userpage, but needs more references / information. Trashyrambo (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

China link in the list of members[edit]

I understand why this page is protected, however, the link to China in the list of "Members of the G-20" section links to a page on Chinese culture rather than to the People's Republic of China. This probably should be corrected by someone who has access.

These G-20 aren't the 20 "major" economies[edit]

If for "major" is intended "(a) greater in size, amount, number, or extent; (b) greater in importance or rank" (as just checked on my Webster's), then some of those 20 economies clearly don't belong to such a club.
A bunch of those countries seem to have been included on the basis of different criteria, obviously.
I would consequently propose to drop the word "major" from the title of this article: quite simple, as it surprisingly isn't applied to those countries inside the text, only in the title!
--Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

disagree
"Major" can mean importance, as you have said, or size or whatever. Saudi Arabia might not be in the 20 biggest economies but it IS important enough to be included for reasons of energy. Certainly geopolitic plays here. Just look at the members. All of them are either strategically located, have big economies, vast population (Indonesia, 240 mil & Mexico, 90 mil) and/or have vast natural resources (Saudi Arabia & South Africa). Rad vsovereign (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

France was considered a "major" Allied power in WW2, despite getting knocked out early in the game. It's major because it has a big population, big economy, significant say in the world economy, strong military, etc...Sure you put a bunch of nations with high economy with high GDP per capita, but in the end, their population size makes them small and insigificant in the greater scheme of global politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phead128 (talkcontribs) 05:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think every country has an implicit wealth. The territory, for example. If we take into account that Argentina owns 3 million square kilometers of land, of wich a big portion are the richests soils in the world for farming, and also that this country produces food for 10 times its own population, then Argentina's implicit wealth is much bigger than that of Japan or any tiny European country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.73 (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Contents[edit]

So one thing that's been bugging me for a long time about wikipedia is its erroneous way of constructing its table of contents. Many articles have contents that go:

1. 1.1 2.

If someone wrote a term paper and had a table of content looking like that he'd be getting an F. In order for there to be a subheading to "1." there has to be at least two subheadings, i.e. 1.1 and 1.2. But often you see tables like the one above (in this article on the G20 for example). I've been trying to find some wiki-guidelines for how to write these things, and thus try to lobby for a change, but to no avail. Can somebody direct me towards such guidelines, or provide an explanation as to why editors don't change this. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.169.253 (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

G-20 country rankings?[edit]

I believe it would be useful to the reader to be able to look at (sort?) the various G-20 economies by population, GDP, growth rates, or a few other common metrics for comparing countries? We can do this already for all (or most) nations in many Wikipedia articles; e.g. List of countries by population, List of countries and outlying territories by total area, List of countries by GDP (nominal), List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, or even List of countries by number of troops. It is quite difficult to quickly get a view as to how just the G-20 countries stack up in these common metrics.

I therfore think it would be useful to have a single table of the 20 G-20 countries with several (four or six??) columns of info on each country that might be most useful/relevant for a quick overview. We could insert such a table in this page (or possibly on another G-20-related page). We would, ostensibly. have the various columns be sortable as the reader prefers, and of course would wikilink to the more detailed articles of all countries listed above for anyone who wants more detail.

Two questions:

  • 1 Does anyone else think this a useful idea and something that would add to the readers' helpful and encyclopedic assessment of the G-20 countries?
  • 2 If so, what data columns do you think most useful as a starting point?

N2e (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

G20 now supersedes the G8.[edit]

CaribDigita (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Turkey and Russia[edit]

Although Turkey and Russia are located both Asia and Europe,These contries generally consider as a European state(because of econmoic,social,cultural and politics reasons,OECD ...) Also Turkey and Russia got place in European Economies Table( Turkey #6 and Russia #2 economy in Europe).Turkey and Russia are sociopolitically in Europe and should be European block."Europe is representing 6 countires+EU in G-20" it is Well-Known determination in whole world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.164.14.142 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


Stop That edit war(!) Australia or Others are not inside Council of Europe or EUROSPHERE.Turkey is a part of the "Western Europe" branch of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) at the United Nations,Australia is in others branch**** . And Australia is not listed as in a EUROPEAN economy or market,also is not even in Western European Union,and do not gain memebership statuss for EU etc etc... for geographically issuses Turkey both in WA and SEE and sociapolitically and ecenomically in in Europe with Eruosphere so listed as a western asian market is a big mistake,As for Influence of Countries Turkey is Regional power in Caucasia , Balkan peninsula and in greater Mid-east.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_europe *(Turkey and Greece also considering Founder member)

so are u still continue ur insist on this subject , if so check out EU webside. and please do not change again without ur dones coming from official marketting.

and also check European eular diagram in ;) ----http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_organisations_in_Europe-----

European Cenratral Bank says "Europe representing with 6 countries + EU ,inside G-20 and it shows Europe's Economic power in the world". before editing please show ur reason before comparing Turkey with Australia . Dont we in edit war go discussion page and tell people ur info's before editing --Aegeanfighter (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, man. We are just talking about the best display for a synoptic chart. Do as you please with this as long as the result has some coherence and usefulness. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


yes true but the best display for Turkey is European market and we can put a mark it and say ( also classified as a Asian contry but socioeconomically in europe it ll tell everythng we need--78.164.10.238 (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

should make mention that gdp might not be the only factor when ranking the nations by importance[edit]

there's a lot more to sizing up a country's economic power than just gdp, when the country is in the top 15 in that category. exports, energy, resource production, world influence (countries like Canada and Mexico would get an edge because of their influence over the keystone economy (USA)). also based on first quarter growth and estimates for the next couple years by the international monetary fund, the difference between countries like Russia, Canada and South Korea, Mexico is a lot larger. I also updated the information for brazil and mexico. using 2008 data for them is a bit biased since the world recession caused the 2009 data for the other countries using it to be lower.Grmike (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)grmike

Navbox consensus[edit]

There are plausible reasons for modifying the navbox templates at the bottom of the page at G-20 major economies. An opportunity for discussion needs to be part of any process which precedes change. Three arguable improvements are:

A. Combining two of the current navboxes at the bottom of the page?

B. Deleting the current leaders navbox?

This is a poor subject for a navbox because leaders change irregularly over time. The functional utility of this navbox is not greater or better than one which only shows member nations.

C.Standardize/harmonize to "G20" without hyphen?

Only G-15 must have a hyphen, consistent with the group's official web site?

D. Perhaps decision-making may be helped by comparing an array of similar groups and templates?

What is the best next step for this article? for similar articles? --Tenmei (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Why singling out specific protest ideologies?[edit]

Why are paleoconservatives and classical liberals specifically mentioned as protestors in the 2010 meetings? Given the violence and vandalism of the protests mentioned immediately following these ideologies' mentions, suggesting only these two right-wing ideologies were protesting seems to skew information, since all ideolgies are represented amongst the protestors. Plus the violent black bloc groups seem to be more anarchists than the classical liberal or paleoconservative philosophical bent —Preceding unsigned comment added by TexanOkie (talkcontribs) 21:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Canada and Korea Co-Chairs in 2010[edit]

A minor issue arises out of one aspect of the infobox. There is no dispute that Korea assumes the leadership of the G-20 in September and that Korea will host the next summit in November. This is verified by a reliable source which is provided with an embedded hyperlink for convenient confirmation -- see "Kufor leaves for G-20 meeting in Seoul," Ghana News Agency. July 12, 2010; excerpt, "South Korea assumes presidency of the G-20 in September and will host the summit under the theme: "G-20's Role in the Post-Crisis World."

In the absence of contradicting information, additional reverts which delete a verified edit are unhelpful. For redundant clarity, the edit history is revealing; see

  • diff 00:34, 13 July 2010 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (34,421 bytes) (Undid revision 373164624 by Kaiserble revert -- verified by "Ghana News Agency" citation)
  • diff 08:29, 13 July 2010 220.89.229.11 (talk) (34,236 bytes) (Undid revision 373173958 by Tenmei (talk) READ THIS - http://www.g20.org/)
  • diff 08:31, 13 July 2010 220.89.229.11 (talk) (34,339 bytes) (The Republic of Korea is honored to chair the Group of Twenty in 2010)

In September, the infobox will need to be changed -- compare, for example, Seoul summit website's "Official Events and Schedule" here. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The chair rotation is annual. Please, check the official G-20 website. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 18:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the rotation has been annual, but not during 2010. There is a flaw in your reasoning; and this is exacerbated because your comment ignores the citations your edit has now deleted. In addition to the verified support you have overlooked, please reconsider your opinion in light of the following:
  • XINHUA -- "South Korean, Canadian leaders announce to co-chair G20 summit in 2010," Xinhua. June 26, 2009; excerpt, "South Korean and Canadian leaders announced on Friday that they would co-chair a G20 summit in Canada ... [and] another G8 summit in November, 2010."
  • REUTERS -- Ljunggren, David and Randall Palmer. "G20 summit to be held in Toronto," Reuters Canada. December 7, 2009; excerpt, "Next year's summit of the Group of 20 developed and developing nations will be held in Toronto on June 26 and 27, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said .... Harper also said Canada would co-chair a planned G20 summit in November in South Korea. South Korean officials had said previously that Seoul would run that meeting."
These citations are from 2009. This is not a novel concept. In contrast, the single website you cite has been recently created. --Tenmei (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to confuse the chairing of the G20 and the (co-)chairing of the Summit(s). Hence the sources are not contradictory. Finally, if we were to chose among the sources, the official G20 website undoubtely would take prevalence. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 19:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

IANVS -- Yes, we agree on something — a good beginning in a process which moves toward consensus. There is no confusion. I do conflate chair of the G-20 and hosting a G-20 summit of heads of state and government. Is it possible to leverage this small agreement in a step-by-step process; or do you misperceive this thread as closed? --Tenmei (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll wait for your argument then. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 02:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no question that your position is reasonable and informed.
In addition to the home page of the current G-20 website, some of the archived Communiqués are consistent with an understanding that Korea is the G20 chair. Two explicit examples are:
  • 2009: "Communiqué - UK, 7 November 2009," p. 2 §8: excerpt, "We thanked our UK hosts for their presidency of the G20 this year and welcomed the Republic of Korea as chair in 2010. We have agreed that France will chair in 2011."
  • 2010: "The G20 Toronto Summit Declaration, June 26-27, 2010," p. 9, §§48-49; excerpt, "We will meet next in Seoul, Korea, on November 11-12, 2010. We will convene in November 2011 under the Chairmanship of France and in 2012 under the Chairmanship of Mexico.

    We thank Canada for hosting the successful Toronto Summit."

These excerpts also informs a rationale which conflates the G20 chair and the summit host. In this context, 2009 and 2010 are anomalies. In addition to the citations above which use the term "co-chair," let me add another which seems inconsistent with the communiques and a proposed notion about co-chairs for the summit meetings but not for any other aspect of the G20.
In the context created by the research posted above, I dare to use the term "co-chair". A number of international news sources verify what I've heard in television and radio broadcasts. The work I have invested is consistent with WP:Buren. In other words, the burden is not mine to explain this seemingly contradictory data. It is enough that I have now credibly documented the existence of the term "co-chair" in 2010. .
This small point escaped my attention until I stumbled across a very explicit statement in a Ghanaian source which explained that what I had construed as over-lapping co-chairs was a sequential arrangement.
Questions are raised to which we have no better answers at present; but there you have it. The infobox can be restored to:
Co-chairs =  Canada and  South Korea (2010)
Having verified that Korea and Canada are identified as "co-chairs" in 2010 up through September, I don't see what can be construed as controversial?
Please understand that I have no personal views on this subject, nor do I claim expertise. I'm simply suggesting that the currently available data support Co-chairs in the infobox. In the alternative, the data are not clear in rejecting the term "co-chair" in 2010.--Tenmei (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Club of Madrid

Changing gears somewhat ... something not included in any of the G-20 articles is the fact that the Club of Madrid delegates a representative to planning sessions; but this was in the lead paragraph of the article which led to the minor infobox change: "Kufor leaves for G-20 meeting in Seoul," Ghana News Agency. July 12, 2010; excerpt, "Former President John Agyekum Kufuor left Accra Sunday night for Seoul, South Korea, to attend the preparatory meeting of the G-20 as the representative of the Club of Madrid, the largest grouping of former democratically elected heads of state.." -- compare here

When data about this aspect of preparations becomes more fully developed, there will be questions about the best place for inserting this detail? --Tenmei (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


My argument is really simple, and do make a case against your specious reasoning:

1) As per the official sources (see below), the G20 intergovernmental organization, since 2001, has a working troika composed of the nation currently chairing the organization, its immediate succesor and its immediate predecessor. In addition, there are several thematic working groups, (co-)chaired by diverse countries.

2) The G20 Heads of State Summits, since 2008, had been hosted by different nations (contemporarily chairing the G20, or not). At the last Toronto Summit, the host co-chaired the event along with the "G20 organization" chair, South Korea.


What the official sources state about the G20 chair:

  • G-20 Official Webpage: "The Republic of Korea is honored to chair the Group of Twenty in 2010 [...] We look forward to working closely with our Troika colleagues, the UK and France, and drawing on valuable experiences of other G20 members. The Republic of Korea will spare no effort to ensure success in 2010."


I believe there is no reason to conflate both "chairs". One is the G-20 chair, the others are G-20 Summit(s) (co-)chairs. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 01:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This thread has amplified the relevant issues. Specious may not be the best adjective to introduce into this thread:
  1. Seemingly well-reasoned or factual, but actually fallacious or insincere; strongly held but false.
    This idea that we must see through what we have started is specious, however good it may sound.
  2. Having an attractive appearance intended to generate a favorable response; deceptively attractive.
For today, the most important focus of this article is forward-looking in anticipation of the Seoul summit.

At some point in the future, scholarly books will be published which will address this more fully. More information is unlikely to become available in the near future. However, the thread we've created ensures a solid foundation.

We agree that our common goal is to reach towards enhanced academic credibility for this article and its corollaries. --Tenmei (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for your honest stance. I'm sorry I went too far with the allegation of Speciousness. But I'm sure you'll forgive my incapacity to master the usual meaning of some English words, as previously seen in confuse. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 02:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for getting rid of "conspiracy theories" section...[edit]

I wanted to get rid of the part of the critique about American conspiracy theories were behind the G-20's founding for some time now. It is starting to get old and really go into the fringe of society in general. No more "black helicopters saga" to "new world order" statements here, please. Rockies77 (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Brazil President[edit]

There has been a few changes between Lula and Dilma. Both Lula and Dilma are in Seoul, but please notice that Lula is the current president of Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.47.235 (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

G20 or G-20[edit]

Hi. This is really no big deal - but is there a specific reason why we use G8, G33, G22 etc but G-20? --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no good reason. See Talk:G-20 major economies#Navbox consensus above. This subject simply hasn't risen to a level of sufficient interest, not yet. --Tenmei (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Tenmei. Before posting I wanted to make sure that it had not been discussed already, but there was nothing in the index to say that it had - I should have done a word serch. Thanks again. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Flags in table[edit]

In a corollary article -- G8 -- questions about the use of flags in a table was addressed and resolved here in 2008.

Consensus may change; but further discussion is needed before disturbing a somewhat settled status quo in this article's table. See also Talk:BRICS#Consolidated discussion about flag icons. --Tenmei (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Remove the Critiques Section[edit]

With the possible exception of the first paragraph the whole Critiques section should be removed or made into its own article. There is certainly enough information on the global 'anti-globalism' moverments and other protest and political groups to warrant an article. Much of the information in this section is misleading; such as saying Norway provideds the highest amount of development aid: pure fantsay.

Another thing that can define G-20 is the major world leaders that are familiar to most people, for example U.S. president Barack Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.241.208 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-English external link[edit]

The official website of the G-20 has an English-language and a Spanish-language version. A recent editor has been repeatedly replacing the English-language version with the Spanish-language version, with no edit summary explaining the reason. WP:NONENGEL states

  • "Outside of citations, external links to English-language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English . . ." [my emphasis]. This does not appear to be the case here.

Is there any justification for linking to the non-English version? Please discuss here before again linking to the Spanish version, as described at WP:BRD. --Boson (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Euler diagram[edit]

Can someone produce a diagram as proposed here? Japinderum (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Photos and Videos of G-20 Heads of State Eating State Dinner[edit]

Post Photos and Videos of G-20 Heads of State Eating State Dinner with Barack Hussein Obama. For example, they eat fast food and drive-through. Krupuk are deep fried prawn crackers from Indonesia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.120.27 (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC) g20should ddiscuss politics along with economic because politics(war and tension among the county) will make economy disaster(crudel price will increse money will go in war and people will become refuge or politican will kill their own people eg syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.187.200 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Foreign Policy Critiques[edit]

Someone is trying to create a "negationism" on the section about a paper done by the National Taxpayers Union. Obviously, this person is not reading the reference right or is purposely trying to create an edit war by "picking and choosing facts" against what is written in the reference (especially with page 4). Rockies77 (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Prospective members section[edit]

I've just removed this section as it did not provide any citations and the article does not appear to include any material relating to these countries possibly joining the G20. As I understand it, the G20 is not open to new member states, and there's no likihood of existing countries being replaced (its membership isn't the 20 largest economies, but rather large and somewhat geographically representative economies). I note that this list was added by an IP account without any explanation or citations. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Group photos of G-20 leaders...[edit]

Should the group photos of the G-20 leaders be put in a separate topic? Rockies77 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the group photos should have an extra page, because the G20 are the most expensive photo op on the globe. I came to the G20 page to ascertain which achievements can be attributed to the G20 and found NONE, nix, de nada, nitchevo. Norway should be glad they don't have to spend money on such a photo op. If the G20 was fit for purpose we would not have had the global financial crisis in 2008, i.e. 9 years after G20 was formed. I feel duped. 121.209.56.31 (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

List added to lede; please allow to remain, while people evaluate value[edit]

The list of names of the permanent and permanent guest members of the G20 were added to the article lede. This increases the lede's length by <10%, but is makes a most sought after single piece of article information immediately available to the reader.

The list was also textually linked to the visual information of the map, adding to the value of both. Please allow this edit to remain, at least for a time, while people evaluate the potential value of this edit. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

G20, without the hyphen[edit]

The official page https://www.g20.org/ doesn't use the hyphen - they consistently refer to the "G20". I suggest that we should do the same.

Note that I propose changing "G-20" to "G20" but not making any other change to the article title. (I see there has been previous discussion about the title.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Australia GDP[edit]

Australia's nominal GDP is listed as more than $30 trillion USD. The number is beyond absurd. The article on Australia lists their nominal GPD as $1.483 trillion USD which sounds much more realistic.

To add to the above (unsigned) comment, the population of Germany is probably not the same as China. It may be that it's been switched with the EU pop, but it needs someone more knowledgeable to check that. 86.16.201.199 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)