Talk:G20

The Map

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)

Missing Countries

These countries are the regional powers and I think this list is missing Spain and Egypt.

Not being bias

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

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

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

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)

Norway

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 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Spain

Spain is now part of G20! http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9ZoaZ2MQ-5049sITpbDliMxPn_Q —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindrain1 (talk • contribs) 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)

Saudi Arabia?

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)

Norway?

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

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

Requested move

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)

• Comment. Assuming this is a trend, are people saying that this article is the G-20/G20 article, and that the G20 disambiguation article of today should be moved to G20 (disambiguation)? If the answer is "yes" that implies that this article takes priority over G20 developing nations, the G20 Schools, brands such as Infiniti G20, Glock 20, and the Chevrolet G20 van, as well as the other G20s.

IMHO votes in opposition should clarify if they want to

• Leave it alone,
• Move it to G-20 while moving the disambig too,
• Move it to G20 (top economies),
• Move it to G-20 (economic leaders) or perhaps
• some other option.

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

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

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?

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)

Article is not about the meetings

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)

unbalanaced

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

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)