Talk:G8

Talk Page Archives

G8/G7

I realize my edit has been deleted more than once already, and that is why I'm commenting here instead of just making changes, but I really thik we should mention(in passing - say - in half a scentence) that the G7 still exists and still has multiple meetings a year, it is a common misunderstanding to assume it does not and the article does nothing to clear this up. Jethro 82 18:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

EU

Per User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 3#G8 template and Talk:G8/Archive 1#EU inclusion the EU stay in the infobox. Any comments of "I don't agree" or "consensus can change" are irrelevant , the inclusion is backed up by referenced sources, so please produce sources to support your position. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The EU are not a member and should not be included as such and incusion in the infobox is confusing and creates this ambiguity. The BBC facts section and leaders section back this up here:[1]. Also alot of other international orgaisations attend so if you include one you should really include the lot. I say create a seperate template for International organisations which attend the G8 meetings.--Lucy-marie 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The amended template is not in any way ambiguous, neither is the current version of this article (which is what was agreed to previously) with the EU being in a seperate part of the infobox with "Also represented" above it. The source you have provided explicity states the EU are represented, yet it does not mention these other organisations you refer to. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It gives off the impression they are the only International oranisation with any represenatation. This is not true as the AU UN WHO are also represented to name a few. This is why I say have a seperate template for the International organisations and the memeber states.--Lucy-marie 16:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources similar to the ones produced in the previous discussion? I don't see anything except opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This source here shows the UN being represented at the Gleneagles summit by Koffi Annan [2] so It is not just the EU represented at the summit. I shall find more sources later.--Lucy-marie 22:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This source here [3] confirms the CIS attended the St Petersburg summit.--Lucy-marie 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This source here [4] confirms the AU commissioner attended the Gleneagles summit.--Lucy-marie 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The evidence provided last time showed that the EU had attended every G8 meeting since 1977, not just the odd meeting here and there. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Further more they have far more representation than any other organisation. Just look at the photos to see that, who is sitting at the table? The G* leaders and the EU President - not the UN. Who is standing along side the leaders in "family" photos? The EU Presidents. However I agree it can be misleading to say they are the only other ones there as the current term suggests - how about changing it to "regular represention"? - J Logan ^t: 08:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, how come the Council President isn't in the infobox? The EU is represented not only by the Commission President but the President of the European Council. Is there a reason he is not in the infobox? (assuming the EU stays) - J Logan ^t: 08:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I say the EU should not stay because the info box and template can and probably will get very messy. The attendance of the EU at the summits since 1977 is covered in the main text quite explicitly. I advocate the creation of a new template for International organisations at G8 summits and the main bulk of the text for them in the G8 article.--Lucy-marie 12:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, your opinion doesn't really matter here, the EU isn't being removed on a basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion and not a place to attack another user I am now going to report you for being an abusive editor. I have not directed comments personally at you and have tried to further the discussion, It seems however all that is wanted to be done is the continual personal attacking and dismissal of comments. I have tried to be reasonable but shall not stand for this any longer.--Lucy-marie 12:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see what I said right at the top, and what was said on your talk page - User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 3#G8 template. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In particular, here's the exact quote with emphasis added - This is obviously a controversial topic and previous discourse was led by one side who did the research, provided relaible sources showing the current version was the appropriate course of action and the other side just argued and said they did not want it there, but provided no reliable sources to support there argument. You're just repeating last time, and it's a pointless exercise in timewasting. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence has been provided by myself to show the attendance at summits of other International organisations. You have failed to provide evidence for your side. You are merely saying this was said last time and this was the outcome. This is not last time this is now and this is a new discussion. The previous discussion while valid is not the only discussion allowed on the topic. This discussion is just as valid if not more valid as it is more up to date in views evidence and opinion all of which are valid regardless of another persons' opinion.--Lucy-marie 12:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the link to the first discussion in my first post on this page - Talk:G8/Archive 1#EU inclusion. I see no point in duplicating everything that was said there. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the actual issue, if you see here: "The EU has become a full participant in the G8 Summit process but does not chair or host a Summit." and here and here you see the EU listed along side the G8 member countries. Here again shows: "In the 1981 Ottawa Summit, the European Commission President fully participated in all summit discussions for the first time, and has done so ever since." Further more, here it states: "The European Commission is not a G8 member country but has all the privileges and obligations of membership except the right to host and chair a Summit. The Commission has all the responsibilities of membership, and what the President endorses at the Summit is politically binding on him too." I hope I don't have to dig out more to show that the EUs role at the summit it s tad more than a "guest" like other invited leaders? - J Logan ^t: 18:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

only half have nuclear weapons, not "almost all"

All do have nuclear power plants.

Only US, Russia, France, and UK have weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.175.150 (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, it was amended recently to give the sentence a different meaning. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in the intro (7 of the top 8 positions for military expenditure, and almost all active nuclear weapons.) was correct, but there have been numerous edits by editors who, quite frankly, have not read as carefully as they should, taking it read that "almost all G8 countries have nukes". They have edited to say that half have nukes, or have inserted the word "have". The point is that most of the nukes in the world belong to G8 members. To avoid pointless edits and subsequent reverts in future, I've added a few words into the sentence which make it clear. Emeraude (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is true, however this is also very much a Cold War type of mentality valuing the amount of nukes over anything else. Leaving out China, Pakistan, India, most likely Israel and possibly North Korea is like saying that since they don't have as much as the US, Russia, the UK, and France that they are less important on the world scale. I believe that's a bit ethnocentrist.MustangAficionado (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What rubbish. It's purely mathematicist! Emeraude (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, its a notable fact, nothing ethnocentrist about it.- J Logan ^t: 11:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish or not it's irrelevant and/or redundant to the topic in my opinion. It has already noted that they represent the majority of military power, shall we note the amount of jets and soldiers that have combined as well?MustangAficionado (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason why everyone is so keen not to have a nuclear war, their effect is slightly different from that of a jet. They are also seen as a symbol of super-power status.- J Logan ^t: 10:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you need the majority of the world's nuclear weapons to start that war? Do you need more than one? Should we denote their size, and total it? No, because it doesn't matter how big or how many a country has, simply that they has the propensity to engage in nuclear war. The amount of warheads is something Americans are still stuck on from the Cold War, the competition is over; let real politics resume. MustangAficionado (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

G8 attacks

I saw the picture that says

"Protesters try to stop members of the G8 from attending the summit during the 27th G8 summit in Genoa, Italy by burning vehicles on the main route to the summit"

and think it should mention whether these attacks succeded in preventing the summit in any way