Talk:G8/Archive 2

US President
Is there a reason for the inverted commas in "President" George W Bush? Perhaps because people all over the world refer to him as "President" although he is the president of America only202.79.62.27 10:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

EU and G8
See http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/g7_g8/intro/

This link is redundant.--Lucy-marie 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Debate" section?
I think the author in this section is trying to bring attention to certain "globalization" debates, but it is very poorly written and makes virtually no sense to me:

"The debate drives discussions on property rights, global economics, international politics, morality and many other aspects. For example, some defenders believe that patent laws are essential property rights that encourage medical discovery. On the other hand, some critics say that parallel importation is a way out. Some others believe that African poverty is due to the rampant government corruption on that continent while some critics say it is a problem of unfair international trading. Most debate is related to discussions on globalization."

Defenders of what? A way out of what? Does the debate drive discussion of these things or do the discussion of these things drive the debate? And what debate are you talking about? The debate around the G8 table?

I say delete this section or significantly rewrite it.

Democracy and China
Should there perhaps be a clearer indication that a democratic government is a prerequisite for G8 membership?: as China has the 2nd (PPP) or 4th (nominal) greatest GDP in the world, it would seem that this would be the principle impediment to Chinese membership. []--AlexSuricata 11:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not a written requirement so I don't think that's the reason why China is not in G8. Generally thought G8 is a lot less formal and a lot more based on merit than say WTO or UN. Wouldn't you agree? Yongke 17:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Snapshot of history
''Another criticism is that the G8 is now a "snapshot of history". With countries like Iran, India, Brazil and China excluded, the G8 no longer represents the main economic powers of today's world, as it did when it was created.''

I wonder where the one who wrote this got the data from. According to the IMF list of countries ranked by GDP, People's Republic of China (PRC) is the only country in the top-8 that is not member of the G8. According to the World Bank list, it is PRC and Spain. Iran ranks 32nd by GDP, India 12th, and Brazil 10th. I removed Iran, India, and Brazil, because, if GDP should really be used to select countries, there is no controversy here (except for PRC). Gb1291 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Another criticism revolves around the membership of the G8. With the People's Republic of China and India excluded, the G8 no longer represents the concentration of economic power it did when it was created. India is only 12th in terms of GDP, so it doesn't have its place in a paragraph that uses recent nominal GDP figures to argue that some countries don't have their place in the G8. It should be removed once the page is unprotected. Gb1291 06:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Morecambe 2013
Is Morecambe actually hosting the G8 in 2013? Have looked around but can't find anything on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rutld001 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Please source this and put it back. I think this is vandalism.Lizzie Harrison 19:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added comment about Spain in the criticism section.
I have added that comment because Spain was already the 8th largest economy in the world, larger than Canada, in 2004, according to the World Bank and obviously quite larger that Russia. Now, 2007 must be even larger, then the Spanish economy is growing every year at almost 4%. In per capita income it is about to surpass Italy and even Germany within be next two or three years if the current economic trend continues. Spain has been growing well above the European Union average for 13 years now. In fact it is probable that Spain is accepted in the group in the near future. See the following data from 2005 for the size of the economy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

For up-dated per capita income see the following:

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

For the economic situation, job creation and immigration see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1830838,00.html

The previous data do not account for the "underground" economy in Spain, which is thought to be huge. This fact helps explain that immigrants are increasingly choosing Spain over other European countries and that a lot of immigrants come themselves from countries that are supposed to be richer, like the United Kingdom or Germany, while Spaniards are virtually not emigrating to other European countries, in spite of being able to settle freely in any EU country. Actually it is believed that the real economy is quite larger than the official data. Still, as said, only using official data, it is already the 8th largest, according to the World Bank.

Veritas et Severitas 16:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

EU?
EU as a member this dosent seem to tally poperly as it would need renaming the G9 and the EU isnt a specific country.If it ws then France Great Britan Italy and Germany would not have individual representation it would be done through the EU.--Lucy-marie 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok this comment seems to have been ignored so i will have to assume there is not an answer to the question put. I will now have to remove the EU from the list of countries whihc are members. This because i have recieved no response.I will hold off for a couple of days before i proceed with my edits.--Lucy-marie 15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See above, Talk:G8, and leave well alone. Emeraude 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

←The above discussion took a week or more to reach the end of. During the time of discussion, the article was protected. After discussion has ended, the current consensus was to include the EU seperatly based on the G8 website itself. (If you look at all of them, the Eu flag is included, however all verbage seperates the Eu from the rest of the countries). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lucy-marie- the EU may well be represented at some G8 meetings, but is not a member and should not be included as if it is one. Note that many countries and international organisations receive representation at G8 meetings- and they are not included. Astrotrain 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is by far not being included as it is one. Its flag is listed at all G8 official pages.  We have already discussed this. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to include the EU in the infobox Astrotrain 00:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, as of now, there is. We have had a long discussion above and because you dissent does not mean it does not belong.  A copromise has been reached.  Re-removing it will constitute edit warring. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the inclusion of the EU in the infobox and the template- what do other people think? Astrotrain 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * THis has already been discussed. Please feel free to add comments to the above discussion (after reading it).  Thank you. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. All verbage does NOT say the EU is NOT a member. How have you determined that the consensus is what you say it is and what exactly is the consensus you say has been reached? I thought the discussion had got bogged down in deciding whether or not the EU is a member, a partial member, an occasional member or not a member and I don't see that any stated decision has been admitted on this yet. (Despite there being loads of references to it being a member and only one saying it's not - a German Ministry which itself is contradicted by another German site.) Surely we need to establish once and for all that the EU is a member (100%) or it is not, and that negates the whole discussion about the comparative triviality of which flags appear in an infobox! Emeraude 10:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC) As I recall, you found ONE source saying it was not a member (German Government Ministry for Economic Cooperation & Development), and several saying nothing definitive either way and one saying explicitly it WAS a member!!. I found and presented more than ten saying it is, and countless others implying that it is! Against your one! Face it, your argument depends on stretching the meanings of words in the English language (joined, represented, attended). If you want to be pedantic, there are NO OFFICIAL MEMBERS OF THE G8, because there is no official body called the G8 (or G5 or G7). What there is has the EU as an equal of the named countries and every site I have listed has said as much. Emeraude 16:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I found sources explicitly stating that the G8 is NOT a member. Several others agreed that the EU is not a 100% member howerver it should be ok to include the flag because the g8 sites do (but in any verbal comments, differentiate the EU from the rest of the others).  I am not going to get all the sources again, they are all listed above.  face it emeraude the EU IS NOT AN OFFICIAL MEMBER of the G8.  The other option is a complete removal of the EU flag and no mention of it.  Is that what you want?  If you get enough people to argue against the current state, it can be removed with no mention.  However you look at it, as far as i know, emeraude you are one of the only people who things the EU is an official member of the G8. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am letting you know that I am ending this argument. Several others agree with the way it currently is.  You appear to be the only person arguing for full inclusion of the EU in the template.  The article itself does not even claim that the EU is a full member as far as I remeber.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. I've already said that the article is wrong and this needs sorting as well as the infobox. Emeraude

Economic power
This section includes the statement: "The eight countries making up the G8 represent about 14 percent of the world population, but they account for nearly three-quarters of the world's economic output measured by gross domestic product." (my emphasis). There have been a series of edits and reverts to this figure so that it has bounced back and forth between two-thirds and three-quarters. Yet, the reference cited at the foot of the page includes the ststement "the 8 countries of the G8 account for almost half of the world’s economic output." So: almost half / two-thirds / three-quarters. Which? Emeraude 15:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's about two-thirds if you measure gross domestic product by nominal exchange rates, and nearly half if you measure by purchasing power parity. The three-quarters figure is clearly vandalism. &mdash; Kelw (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So I assume that the figure in the article is using nominal exchange rate based on the IMF figures, which gives 65%. But using market exchange rate doesn't give 'nearly half': with IMF figures, 41%; World Bank, 42%; CIA, 41.6% (in each case figures calculated from the Wikipedia pages you linked). Emeraude 13:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Why is barack obama listed as being the host of the 38th summit in 2012?

POV ISSUES
The last two edits by Barista cite POV as the reason for deletion of the statements, although without them the sections in question are still blatantly POV. It is debateable whether or not the London bombings occurred explicitly because of British involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the reasons for African poverty are also debateable. The statements, as is, portray the liberal POV, where the additions made which were removed put forth the other side of the coin. Having both statements seems to be the only fair way to discuss the topic and make this article NPOV.

I am in agreement with whoever said that and I hope others will agree. - Stormscape

National politics v Global economics

The continuity of energy supply is likely to be big worry at the G8 in Scotland. Popular angst that the lights will go out, never mind prices rise, is putting heavy pressure on governments worldwide to do something.

What action can be taken? The issue might rise to the top of the agenda of the G8, but what then? Diversification of supply to nuclear is one temporary solution gathering support.

Pressure on national politicians can lead them to explore the traditional boundaries of unenforceable international rules. For example, word from Ecuador is that the new president is thinking about his options for winning popularity - one is to withhold the service of foreign debt and use the money instead for social programmes nationally. Such are the national pressures on politicians.

It is doubtful whether the G8 can solve the conflict of national politics versus global economics. _________

Energy is immensely political. Supplier nations tend to regard oil and gas as strategic assets that should only be distributed to the global market via nationalised companies; it is said that 75% of the world's oil resources are closed to the oil majors.

Perhaps the G8 could at least start to sort this out? The Secretary-General of the OECD thinks so; he writes this month on "The Energy Challenge". See: http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1567

French leader
I think President Jacques Chirac will be the main man representing France, not the French PM.

French leader should be chaged to Nicolas Sarkozy

Criticism and demonstrations
"Protestors 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". This caption at the bottom of the picture with Genoa is totally inaccurate and biased. The part of downtown Genoa where the summit took place was "Red Zone" meaning closed to the demonstrators.It was therefore impossible for the demonstrators to try to stop members of the G8. The G8 members and the demonstrators had no contact that day. I think that caption should be removed.It doesn't make any sense.


 * I agree to that. Also the burning car in the picture is a police car. In the big version you can see that it says carabinieri on the front and on the side. To me it sounds improbable that protestors would burn a police car to blockade a street. There are many things which are more easy to obtain and to set on fire than that. Maybe the caption could be changed to something like "Burning police car in the streets of Genoa, Italy during the 27th G8 summit". 200.88.18.253 22:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does Japan appear as Pie?
All links that should say Japan say Pie odd

Economic Measurements- PPP vs. nominal GDP
The GDPs listed are nominal. As we all know, nominal GDP says absolutely nothing and does can not be directly used to measure economic wellbeing between two countries. I propose that we list PPP rather that nomial GDP. Please share your opinion.


 * Regardless of its faults, GDP remains the standard form of measurement employed by newspapers worldwide. I think it would be fantastic if a PPP section were included in the article (coupled with a brief explanation of the PPP vis a vi the GDP), but, until there is a sea change in the way journalists and average citizens discuss economics, the GDP should retain its place in the article. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 23:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC))


 * The GDPs listed are nominal. As we all know, nominal GDP says absolutely nothing and does can not be directly used to measure economic wellbeing between two countries. I propose that we list PPP rather that nomial GDP. Please share your opinion. It seems you are comparing apples and oranges. GDP and PPP measure different aspects of an economy, and we can't absolutely say that one is better than the other. It's true that PPP is a much better indicator of living standard than GDP, but that has no relevance to an organization like the G8. The G8 is not a consumerist association. The G8 was created in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis as an attempt to put together nations that have significant economic power in order to build a platform to influence government policies worldwide. PPP is a measure of relative economic power that is mainly relevant to people who live inside the country. While GDP has admittedly many deficiencies, it aims to be a direct measure of economic output, thus is much more correlated with how much a country can weight on the world scene. In case you are wondering, note that I do not stand behind the G8, and I myself am a citizen of a country that has a low GDP... However, I believe that my dislike of the way countries are selected to be part of the G8 shouldn't make me lose touch with economic realities. Gb1291 02:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Russia...?
I think that the article should also include why Russia isn't a part of the G-8... It's something that I want to know as well. If Russia isn't considered one of the top 8 industrialized nations, then why is it included in the group?


 * Russia is a part of the G8. It may have lost its status as a superpower, but the nation never ceased to play a key role in geopolitics (remember:it still possess thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons).  In other words, even in the G8, money is not everything. BTW, while it may not be in the top eight, it has experienced 6 to 7(+) percent annual GDP growth for the last decade.  Regardless of its rank, it will not be going anywhere soon.   --(Ptah, the El Daoud 00:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Yes, Russia is part of G8, in fact, it hosted G8 conference in St. Petersburg as part of its membership last year. Even by economic measures, being 9th in the world, and rapidly growing, it is a vital member.

You mean why Australia? ;)

UK Prime Minister
The information on this page is outdated soon - it should be Gordon Brown. Just thought I would point it out, Maddox.


 * When Brown becomes prime minister the infobox will be changed and not before, we had enough of that with Sarkozy. Thanks for the heads up though. One Night In Hackney  303  13:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mnemonics
Many people cannot remember the countries of the G8. This is one mnemonic to help remember them. Other mnemonics to remember the G8 are, in accordance with Wiki philosophy, encouraged. British, Italy, Germany, France, United States, Canada, Japan, and of course Russia. Sjengdahl 15:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

China
Is China not allowed into the G8 because they are a Communist state? I'm no expert on economics, but it seems to me that China is becoming one hell of an economic power. PimpyMicPimp 01:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a chatroom. One Night In Hackney  303  05:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, forgive me in trying to expand my knowlege! I swear, it shall never happen again! I beg of you, look into your heart, master of the Wiki, and find the grace to forgive one as lowly as I! Praise be unto you! PimpyMicPimp 22:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why China isn't a member of the G-8. It is more powerful (in all ways) then any other G-8 country, except USA... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.225.216 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 June 2007 Nick Cooper 16:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mexico
Why is Mexico in the sidebar of the G8 countries?

Recent changes reverted
Will all editors please familiarise themselves with WP:RS and WP:CITE, and also avoid referencing to other Wikipedia articles, you cannot do that it must be referenced to a reliable source. I have no idea what facts in the article are correct or incorrect, but unless sources are provided to support any changes they will be reverted. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  07:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Expanding on the G8 Article
As a perpetual student, I often read the news, then come here for explanation. I don't fully understand the reasons behind the G8 protests, and I often wonder what the G8 Summit has to do with me. In other words, how does the G8 effect me, an average citizen of the United States? What should I be watching for in terms of my own social concerns? It all seems so far removed from the "common" peoples world, that most feel that the G8 is of little concern to them.

I would like to see the article expanded to how the G8 affects the citizenry of the US and other developed countries. Could one of you very knowledgeable folks do this? Thanks very much!

69.77.146.151 18:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Hymnsinger

Presidency
The article states: "The country holding the presidency is responsible for planning and hosting a series of ministerial-level meetings." As a "country" can't hold a presidency, I wonder what this sentence means. A head of state technically embodies the state, and therefore it would be he or she who presides; but, of course, in a number of cases within the G8, the head of government attends and not the head of state. Should the sentences speaking of a G8 presidency not be reworded? --G2bambino 02:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Representation of Third world
Why did someone delete the part that the reason that there is no third world country or 'global south' in the G8 because their economies are not at the level?

Future Summits
Can the future G8 Summit locations be referenced or are they only OR speculation to be removed? Spigot Map  10:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I live in Harrisburg, PA and I'm pretty sure that nothing has been announced about us hosting it in 2012.71.173.147.67 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The G7 doesn´t comprise the 7 largest economies
Until the end of this year, China, Brazil, and India will be the 2nd, 6th, and 9th largest economies, and they aren´t inside the G7. Italy will be the 10th largest economy and GB is the 8th. It should be considered in the introduction of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.55.62.246 (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE
The listed nations are not done by wiki users preferences but only reporting what is reality. China or India, etc are not on the list NOT because some wiki users don't like them but BECAUSE officially the organization is structured that way. The Member Facts section needs to be updated - seriously inaccurate information. see https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ -G

G7, G8?
Is it 7 or 8 these days. I had seen BBC had been referring to it as the G7 for some weeks now and apparently CNN has recently followed suit. Is Russia still formally a part of the G8? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsponaas (talk • contribs) 04:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Its about time. They should have been doing this years ago. Russia is not a democracy and should not be included. The G20 has non-democracies. The G7 is supposed to be the top 7 democratic economies in the world. When Russia was included it was something like number 23 in the size of it's economy and it was moving rapidly away from democracy, like Hitler did after he won an election .... taking over the media jailing and murdering political opponents , etc.

The G7 wanted to let Russia visit the meetings to convince it to be a democracy and started calling it G7+1 because Russia was not an official member yet .... but corruption in the EU made Russia an official member even though it did not qualify. The Germans in particular do whatever Russia tells them to do in order to get Russian gas ; But the continued rapid movement away from democracy and repression in Russia and Putin's general bad behavior ; committing assassinations of political opponents in EU, and invading Georgia, indirectly supporting Iran's bid to get nukes , selling weapons to terrorists , etc , etc , etc. has finally convinced the G7 to start meeting without Russia ..... probably on the insistence of the US and England.

Of course if one goes to number 8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macer1 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Russia is an official member on the political side, but not the financial side. So, there is the "G8" which includes Russia and meets annually to discuss political, environmental, economic, ect issues, there is also a "G7" finance meeting that excludes Russia because it has less influence on world finances than energy, where it is important. Djembe (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)djembeDjembe (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is china ?
China should be in G8 i don't understand this.China has the 4th biggest economy in the world and probably will pass Germany in 2008, why china is not there and Italy that has a economy much more weak is? Augusto Fontes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.160.122 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i am agree. In fact, in modern times Spain has the 8th economy in the world more important that Canada economy. Why is Canada in G8 and not Spain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.17.46 (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Continuing on that subject .. the section Economic Power says that all 8 countries are in the top 10 countries by GDP, "(see the GDP list and the PPP list)". But if you go to the GDP and PPP lists, you don't find all the countries in the top 10 (GDP lacks Russia, PPP, a completely unrelated statistic at the national level, btw, lacks Canada). I'm the last person to want to call out Russia, I thought that move by Clinton was one of his better international moments. But I'm pretty sure that the data's been that way for a number of years.  So I'm going to be bold and replace the "see GDP and PPP" bit with a  —  r obbiemuffin  page talk 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't need to do that, so I just removed the link to PPP. Because the GDP data from the CIA world factbook does in fact go against the grain,s o to speak, with the other two sources. —  r obbiemuffin  page talk 01:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would imagine the pressure to include Spain is lessened considerably by EU representation, whereas not including Canada would leave a major economic power - and crucially, the one most important to the United States - completely out of the loop.


 * There's also the intangible question of 'first-teir' economic status. Spain would be the poorest / most underdeveloped of the 'G7' countries (e.g. as measured GDP/capita), whereas as of 2008 Canada is probably the richest (passing the United States). Although that's a whole other can of worms (like, why 'poor' Italy and not rich Sweden or the Netherlands).

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)

Do you have references that back this up? I'm sure if you add on the talk pages they'll take you more seriously. ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Because its not a democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macer1 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

EU
Per User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 3 and Talk:G8/Archive 1 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 Hackney 303  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:. 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 Hackney  303  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 Hackney  303  16:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This source here shows the UN being represented at the Gleneagles summit by Koffi Annan 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 confirms the CIS attended the St Petersburg summit.--Lucy-marie 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This source here 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 Hackney  303  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 Hackney  303  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. One Night In Hackney  303  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 Hackney  303  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. I see no point in duplicating everything that was said there. One Night In Hackney  303  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)

Sorry, that was for the post above about China not being in the G8

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 Hackney  303  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)

I think Canada has the 2nd oldest nuclear program in the world and its nuclear technology is being used in China, South Korea and other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 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 ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Is it honestly true that 4 of G8 members have 95-99% of all nuclear arms....If one includes China and India both in the Outreach 5 it may be true...but surely not without. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBearII (talk • contribs) 21:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

G8 and Russia
Shouldn't there be a reason why it is sometimes called g8 and russia? I think we should put it in there to make the article less confusing. ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's too early to change the article now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.242.152.66 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There have been attempts to change this article to past tense, as in "The G8 was a forum..." This is because of comments made by German Chancellor Merkel, who said that the G8 has been effectively suspended. It is too soon to conclude that the G8 is actually dead simply based on these quotes. As such, the article should be maintained in the current tense pending a resolution of this uncertainty, i.e. "The G8 is a forum for the governments of..." Gmanfive (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Angela Merkel
Since Angela Merkel is the only woman in the G8 that might be notable to highlight. ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe the sex of a member should have nothing to do with their politics. And the fact she is the first woman member, in this day, should not be that suprising. I feel your comment is very sexist. And, you can't get overthe fact men and women can be in a position of power equally, and be equally capable (caeteris paribus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.16.57.201 (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone called "Grawp" Really trashed this the article. I think I fixed it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connington (talk • contribs) 08:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh yeah... why is the bottom part of the article part of the table? Edit: nevermind someone must have fixed it


 * can someone change it to President Bush, not President Obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.254.147.8 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Italy?
Why is Italy in the group? There are countries more industrialized who deserve more to be in the group than Italy. Mafia perhaps?

72.12.140.32 (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Such as? --89.97.35.70 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The membership reflects the world of the mid-70's, just as the UN Security Council reflects the world of 1945. Some scholars use the "concert model" to describe the G8 as a traditional great powers concert. Accordingly, once members are let into the concert, they are never kicked out. That's how such concerts have historically worked. Consequently, the G8 has been notably hesitant to expand to include new members. Russia underwent an extensive 10 year "try-out" before becoming a full member in 2003 when it was announced that Russia would host the 2006 summit. Djembe (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Cause Italy is the 6th of the advanced economies and 6th by national wealth in the world. User:Barjimoa. — Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

German Translation
Shouldn't the German translation of "Group of 8" be in the infobox also, as Germany is a member? And as there are no Spanish speaking countries in the G8 (unless you include the US) this should be a more important than Spanish. I don't know German so someone will have to help me out here. Danielfranklin78 (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The term is Wirtschaftgipfel. --Tenmei (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't China replace Italy in the list?
I think that China should replace Italy in the list of G-8 countries. China is the 4th powerful country (economy-wise) and Italy has a weaker strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.82.166 (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "China is the 4th powerful country (economy-wise)". Irrelevant. Italy is a member of the G8, China isn't, and this article, like anything in an encylcopaedia, is about what is. Whether or not China should be a member of the G8 is another question. Emeraude (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the fact that the G8 are also technical allies, and all of them are democracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.56.215 (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Russia is in the G8, so the "must be a democracy" rule has apparently been dropped. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Russia is a democracy. 210.121.157.138 (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Why Italy? Canada´s economy is much smaller than Italy´s. Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.235.20 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS (flags)
This seemed like it might be a grey area .... The following was copied from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags):
 * Question: The article about the G8 incorporates a Wikitable; and flags are posted as a quick graphic device to distinguish amongst the 34 summits which have been held since 1975.  This use of the flagicon-template is helpful; but I do not know whether it will be perceived as consistent with the guidelines for flags.  If not, why not?
 * Answer: The table in question would be considered appropriate because it's a list in which the flags are useful for navigation. The way to avoid future problems is simply to read the guidelines (and discuss the matter here if you don't like them!) Cop 663 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In the context of this article, if a flagicon-template were to be questioned in future, this brief exchange could help speed up the process of resolving any problems cropping up.--Tenmei (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

G8+?
Should the EU be categorized "permanent"? Or perhaps better categorized as just one amongst a number of leaders from international organizations -- on the same basis, in a sense, as the Secretary-General of the United Nations or the President of the World Bank?

As I understand it, your arguably correct viewpoint informs your recent edits to articles about the G8 summits. I'm guessing that you think that the G8 should be a group of eight members -- that it is more than a bit little awkward when the "family photos" at the summits always present more than eight world leaders. In a G8 context, the issue becomes something to do with categorizing the EU ...:
 * 🇪🇺 European Union Jose Manuel Barroso, Commission President?

In the following template/pattern, I understand that you would prefer re-positioning the EU elsewhere: +
 * 🇨🇦 Canada
 * 🇫🇷 France
 * 🇩🇪 Germany
 * 🇮🇹 Italy
 * 🇯🇵 Japan
 * 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
 * 🇺🇸 United States
 * 🇪🇺 European Commission

I think your edit is questionable -- not because it's illogical, nor even that it's not true -- but solely because you haven't yet offered a citation to support the edit.
 * See Verifiability -- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

In the absence of another cited source, the Reuters analysis which is cited at 34th G8 summit would seem to be controlling. Do you see my point? To summarize: it's not that you're wrong, but rather that you're not quite right either. What do you think? Can you upload a citation which verifies your reasoning and your edit? If yes, I would gladly help metastacize your edit throughout the entire array of G8-related articles. If not, I would feel justified in continuing to resist the very modest change you seem to be suggesting. Which is better? The bottom-line question becomes something like, "Which configuration is more readily verified?" --Tenmei (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Source does not say the EU is a member of the G8 all it says it it was at the G8 summit. There is no mentioning in the sources about the G8 being a member or who the members are. The source simply states the Jose Manuel Barosso Is the EU commission president. Furthermore the sources uses the following language" Borroso also urged G8 leaders not to backtrack on their..."If the words other G8 leaders then ity would imply the EU was a member without the word "other" it implies they are just invited and decided to do a similar thing to the actual members.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I appreciate your reasoning; and I can point to at least one citation which seems to affirm your analysis. See the next-to-last paragraph in a recent article in the Toronto Globe and Mail -- "Canada a laggard on African aid."  However, I continue to believe that the configuration you've edited out -- the G8+1 listing -- was helpful and arguably better.  Assuming your view is best, I wonder how you would construe the following:
 * "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."


 * Similar language is found at the web page of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations, beginning with a more direct, declarative statement:
 * Who are the G8 Members? The G8 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission President is a full G8 Member and has a leading role in representing the Union at the G8 summit. [emphasis added]


 * If this doesn't quite resolve this issue for us, what do you think  might be more convincing?  How can we find a way to move forward together? --Tenmei (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, a lot of media (like the globeandmail article) do not understand the issue of the EU and G8 and hence use the term "observer" even though there is no such thing with the G8. As more formal articles make clear, the EU has the responsibilities of membership, though it is not included as a "G9" because G8 stands for Group of Eight Nations, not Nations and Organisations. It has been a longer member than Russia, joining the year after Canada, and is always pictured along side the other leaders in photos (you never see a G8 only picture, always G8+EU) and flags on display always include the EU flag. Looking at the reality aI don't think there is any real controversy here and in fact we should correct the misconception that has arisen due to the G8 name in our role as an encyclopedia. The EU should be listed with the rest of the G8, as that is its role in the meetings, rather than listed with the UN which would be misleading as to its place at the summit. Further more, no complications would arise form this as the lists on most of these pages say "permanent members" not anything like "member countries" which would be exclusionary to an organisation.- J Logan t: 09:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the EC president to the articles since he took part, though this has been removed by Lucy-marie. I offered a valid citation on every page and the EU, as the stack of citations present show, is a practical member along side all the others - it only does not host meetings because it overlaps with other members and it is called G8 because G stands for group of nations and hence although the EU participates is its not a nation hence the name has not changed.- J.Logan`t : 15:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The EU is a member of the G8, and the following official websites provide the evidence:
 * The following sites state the EU is a member of the G8:
 * EU official sites
 * Press releases
 * European Commission
 * Governments
 * French Government Foreign Ministry
 * Belgian Government Foreign Ministry


 * G8 sites
 * G8 Genova, Italy 2001
 * G8 Birmingham, UK 1998
 * G8 Gleneagles, UK, 2005


 * The following sites say the EU is a member, empasising that the EU is not a country:
 * G8 Information Centre, Canada


 * The following sites say the EU is a member, using a form of words which empasises that the EU is not a country:
 * Canada G8 site
 * Russia G8 site


 * The following site includes EU in List of Members of G8 countries:
 * G8 sites:
 * G8 Gleneagles, UK, 2005


 * In addition, the following sites show the EU flag equally with the country flags at the page header (though other world leaders attended, their flags are not shown):
 * Governments:
 * G8 Canada
 * G8 sites:
 * G8 St Petersburg, Russia
 * G8 Genova, Italy 2001
 * G8 Gleneagles, UK, 2005
 * Academic:
 * University of Toronto, G8 Information Centre, Canada

And that's just a brief selection. Emeraude (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The EU/EC is not a full member because it cannot host summits. Russia provides such a precedent; it was not until it was announced that it was going to host the St Petersburg summit in 2006 that it was considered a full member.

That's not to reduce the importance of EU/EC participation, but the G8 is a unique entity in that there is a full spectrum of participation by various countries and international organizations. Djembe (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "feldman1" :
 * Feldman, Adam. "What's Wrong With The G-8," Forbes (New York). July 7, 2008.
 * [see above]

new french position
Discurso del presidente de francia (y protempore de la union europea) nicolas Sartozy avalando una expansion/modernizacion del consejo de seguridad de la onu y del G8, en la 63ª asamble general, el 23 de septiembre de 2008. sorry but i hope you can reed that, aniway see the video is in english and is relevant. i am "fero" in spanish wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.34.237 (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Gracias. --Tenmei (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pres. Sarkozsy's speech in French, English and Spanish is available here. --Tenmei (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Canada's economy is a lot more powerful than Spain's
the nominal gdp is the same Spain didn't surpass Canada they're both between 1430 and 1450 billion dollars. has anyone looked at their gdp per capita, oil resources, and exports ? Canada exports almost 2 times more than Spain and has 10-15 million less people with the same nominal gdp. having the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, one of the best nuclear programs in the world it is a top 8 country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are simply worng mate. See below. Walky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

the difference in nominal gdp is within an acceptable margin of error. That's not enough to overcome the other categories that Canada is a lot higher in.

Nominal GDP doesn't have all that much significance in a context such as this. If you want to compare economies, do so on a PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) basis, not nominally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.145.124 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A G-2 would be enough
With a G-2 Summit between the Fed and the ECB it would be enough.

There can be two kinds of Summits:

1. The G-2: FED and ECB.

2. G-14 including all the main economic powers in the World. Just for talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.210.54 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's 2011, and I think you should eat your words. ECB is shooting blanks to salvage Europe from another Lehnman type disaster. LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Spain controversy
The spain controversy is very much downplayed in this article. Spain is the 8th economic power in the world, before Canada, and here you have some links that show the controversy:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Top_Headlines/Spain_demands_seat_at_G8_finance_crisis_summit/rssarticleshow/3625529.cms

http://www.france24.com/en/20081021-spain-demands-seat-finance-crisis-summit

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20081021%5CACQDJON200810211312DOWJONESDJONLINE000572.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=Spanish%20PM%20Demands%20Spain%20Has%20Seat%20At%20Financial%20Crisis%

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/282770.asp

In fact it is all over the net.

how does replacing Canada (that has a nominal gdp 99.6 % as big as Spain's) with a country that isn't a major world trading nation, has fewer fortune 500 companies, less raw materials, a smaller stock market, a nominal gdp per capita 26.5 % smaller, make sense ? the US is the source of the world crisis and Canada trades more with the US than China and Japan combined. Canada's banks also own a lot of US banks. The only way Spain should be there is if it is the G9. If there is only the G8 Spain can't be there because Canada is more important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And here you have the list of countries and real size of their economies at current exchange rates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Spain has surpassed Canada according to all organization, so this issue should be dealt with more properly here.

And in terms of per capita income at PPP it has even surpassed countries like Italy, France and Japan, according to the CIA World Factbook, that gives the following values:

Spain 33600 US dollars. France 32600 US dollars. Italy 30900 US dollars. Japan 33500 US dollars.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

So, the com bination of high per capita income and 8th largest economy is being an enbarrassement for the G8 and there is speculation that the US, that is Bush, is boycotting Spain becasue of Rodriguez Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, in the Irak war. Otherwise the present situation seems difficult to understand. Walky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking into account that Argentina (not very friend of Bush) and Turkey will be in the Summit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.211.232 (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You got it. Just compare those economies with Spain. A d on top of all those figures, Spain is the 3rd largest international investor. See:

how does Spain compare to Canada in exports, trade, gdp per capita, billionaires, resources, largest trading partners, nominal gdp ?

all the G8 members are top 9 world exporters Spain is not in the top 10. Canada has a higher gdp per capita than all the largest economies except the US and maybe the UK. Spain's nominal gdp is .4 % larger margin of error could be .5 %. that's not large enough to overcome Spain's shortcomings in gdp per capita, exports, world trade partners (Canada trades more with the US than China and Japan added together). Canada has more fortune 500 companies, the Toronto stock exchange is bigger than the Madrid stock exchange. how is about 20 billion dollars difference in nominal gdp out of 1400-1500 billion dollar economies enough to make one country's economy more important than the other ? the g8 countries are top 10 world traders why would they replace the most important trade partner of the US that is top 8-9 world export nation and has a gdp per capita over 40 thousand dollars with another country based only on a difference in nominal gdp of 0.4 % ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ottawaregion.com/media_lib/Doing_Business_Archive_Presentations/Doing_Business_in_Spain_Legal_Environment.pdf

So, the US (Bush) position here is getting more and more embarassing. Walky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.19.122 (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

canada's nominal gdp is 99.6 % as big as Spain's nominal gdp but
it exports 70 % more, has a nominal gdp per capita 36 % bigger, a bigger stock exchange, more raw materials, maybe a deeper penetration of the US banking industry.

the only country that exports more than Canada that's not in the g8 is the netherlands (nominal gdp is about half of canada's).

market value of the 5 largest banks in both countries spain about 212 billion dollars canada about 195 billion dollars market value of fortune 500 insurance companies spain 10.33 billion dollars canada about 94 billion dollars

canada us trade from january to august 2008416.02 billion dollars eu us trade from january to august 2008 442.774 billion dollars.

almost every other economic indicator gives canada a big edge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not about the exports, as Canada practically trades with just one country - the US. Most of the exports are raw materials anyway, like a developing country. Canada practically has no industry - everything comes from the US, from blenders to toothpaste. Spain influences the world way more than Canada, it is a gate to Latin America. Spain 'poorer' than Canada? Dream on -- after your high taxes are deducted from your salaries, we keep more cash in our pockets here in Spain. Spain is the 3rd largest foreign investor in the world, and our streets don't have potholes. Sorry, it's just how it is... Canada is culturally insignificant.... A 2nd rate USA, at most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.236.10 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

''' Spain Economy is bigger according to all world Organizations. Not necessary to analyse it step by step: Spain is the 3rd largest world investor, 5th largest car producer etc. All this is not necessary. The economy is just larger. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

............................................

would a country with a nominal gdp per capita of 33099 be large enough for you to say it's wealthier than a country with a nominal gdp per capita of 33000 but an economy a lot bigger ?

0.3 % difference could be overcome in a month. the other categories like exports are important. Canada is 9 Spain is 16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

.......................... Come on, Spainś economy is now larger. Anyway, the point is not that Canada should be out, but Spain also in. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

what's more significant Canada's 70 % edge in exports 36 % edge in nominal gdp per capita and 30 % larger market capital of their largest banks and insurance companies or Spain's 0.3 % edge in nominal gdp ?

...............................................

You have a big problem with the fact that Spain has actually surpassed Canada's economy in nominal GDP, which is the basis for choosing countries in the G7. The G8 is the G7 plus Russia. I hope you can live with it. Probably things will come back just to normal, because Spain has been one of the richest countries in the world during most of its history (not all of its history, of course), and we are talking at least 3000 thousand years, when the first Spanish big city was founded, in spite of all the cheap Anglo propaganda, that is already a couple of centuries old. Historically, Culturally and Economically it has an unparalleled heritage. Just to mention one example Spain is one of the countries in the world with the most world heritage sites of cultural value recognized by the international community (actually the second of the world with 40 sites, behind Italy with 41), and this is the result and legacy of maximum civilization and affluence.

See:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Total_WHS.png

Spain is also one of the countries in the world that has influenced it the most (by the way it discovered America and opened the road to the world such as we know it today).

See.

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

And Spain has created two of the largest world languages.

See.

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

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

(Yeah, Portuguese is also a Spanish language. It was born in Northern Spain and it is one of the five official languages of Spain under the name of Galician, although a lot of Galician nationalists do not want to admit it)

And I could continue with all this gibberish or just state that according to all world organizations, Spain, in 2008, in spite of almost half a century of economic and political isolation due to the fascist Franco dictatorship, is the 8th largest economy in the world and has surpassed Canada in nominal GDP.

And to finish, here you have a cut and paste piece of what the CIA world fact book 2008 has to say about the Spanish economy.

''A peaceful transition to democracy following the death of dictator Francisco FRANCO in 1975, and rapid economic modernization (Spain joined the EU in 1986) have given Spain one of the most dynamic economies in Europe and made it a global champion of freedom. ''

See it here.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sp.html#Econ

And of course Spain is not perfect.

I hope you can live with it. Jan.

nominal gdp canada 1.43 trillion spain 1.46 trillion

per capita canada 43000 spain 33000

exports canada over 400 billion spain over 250 billion

canada is the bigger economy. there isn't really a difference in nominal gdp there is in the other categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

All the categories put together account for the final size of the economy. Get some basics before coming here cherry picking information that ends up being just gibberish.

And this is the size of both economies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

2007 International monetary fund: Spain 1,439,983. Canada 1,436,086.

2007 World Bank: 1,429,226. Canada 1,326,376.

2007 CIA World Factbook. 1,439,000. Canada 1,432,000.

So, the Spanish economy is bigger when you put together all services and goods produced in both countries, that is what the GDP is all about, my friend, not only the figures that you like to cherry pick. So, it does not matter how much to want to go around it, and since you just repeat yourself and show little knowledge of economy this is my last response. Bye. Jan.

that shows that the cia factbook canada has a bigger economy than the world bank data for spain.

there isn't a significant difference in gdp cia factbook and monetary fund have canada within .4 % of spain. per capita gdp is a lot higher exports are a lot higher largest trading partners canada is very important to the country that every other country depends on. the little difference in per capita gdp isn't enough to convince anyone spain is the country the largest economies are more concerned about. canada is one of the largest energy producers has one of the best nuclear programs and has more fortune 500 companies than russia, italy, and spain. its largest city has the 7th best skyline in the world, had at one time the 2 tallest buildings in the world, has a larger stock market than madrid, is one the most multicultural cities in the world and is bigger than madrid (the horseshoe area around toronto has a gdp and population almost the same as chicago). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

canada nominal gdp 1.432 trillion spain nominal gdp 1.429 trillion
when you take canada's information from the cia factbook and spain's from the world bank. when the economies are that close neither should be considered larger than the other. the other economic data favours canada. g8 is known first as the richest countries and second as most powerful (that's why china and no african country is in it). canada gdp per capita over 43000 spain gdp per capita over 32000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You must be of hard understanding. Spain per capita income is among the highest in the world. According to the Cia fact book 2007, even higher than France´s or Japan on a PPP basis at 33600 (if you knew about economics you would know that Per Capita on a PPP basis is the best way to measure the level of life in a country). For several years it has been creating more than half of the jobs in the European Union (And the European Union is the largest Economy in the world), it has the second largest immigration rate in the world after the US (and it is much smaller than the US), it is the 3rd largest world investor and a long etc, and most importantly, on nominal GDP (if you knew something about economics you would know that Nominal GDP is the best way to measure the weight of a country in the international economy)its economy is larger than Canada, so stick that fact up your beep. And get used to it, because Spain has been on an upwards trend for more than 15 years and this distance is probably going to continue getting bigger in the future. So, continue freezing in that country of yours and bang your head against the wall if you do not like reality. Jan.

compared to Canada Spain's per capita gdp is not high. canada's is 36 % higher and the rest of canada's economy is either a lot bigger or almost the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, look at the heading of this section and look at the way this user likes to present and manilupate information. He must be a sick person, but becasue someone is sick it does not mean he can manipulate wiki. Jan.

how many g8 countries are not top 10 export countries ? how many of them have stock markets that are smaller than stock markets from other countries ? how many of them are not important energy producers ? how many of them have a nominal gdp that's less than 1 % bigger than a country not in the G8 ? when countries have the same nominal gdp what other things will be important to consider ? energy, trade, gdp per capita, billionaires, nuclear energy. in all those categories Canada is better than Spain.

G14: Egypt, UAE or Saudi Arabia
I read somewhere that invitation to Egypt to join G8+ caused questions from UAE and Saudi Arabia about the choice. The latter is already a member of G20 and the economy of UAE exceeds Russia (or they claim so). Thoughts, links? I have nothing against Egypt, by the way. Interested if the expansion is going to happen. --Atitarev (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is unlikely. The G8 expands only very cautiously, and Egypt is not a stable country. Djembe (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

why are some people still calling it G8 ?
The G7 meets without Russia now. It should never have been included in the first place because it is not a democracy. That is one of the requirements. That is why China is not part of the G7. If they let non-democracies in China would have been invited to join, not Russia. The G7 let Russia in to try to persuade it to move more toward democracy and because the some EU members ( particularly Germany ) do what the Russians tell them to do to keep the Russian gas flowing. Because Russia moved even more rapidly toward dictatorship and now can not be considered anything else the G7 meets without them. So, why when you do a search for G7 , G8 comes up ? No one has fixed this yet ? If no one else will fix this I will but don't have time right now. maybe no one does ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macer1 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Go with your anti-Russian rhetoric somewhere else, Wikipedia is not for propaganda but for facts. --Atitarev (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Atitarev. To be clear, again, there is a G7 which deals with finance without Russia, and a G8 which deals with everything else. Russia is an important contributor to global governance and has significant energy resources. The St Petersburg summit showed then-President Putin put great effort into innovating the accessibility of the summit to the media through daily dialogue and civil society (through Civil 8). Djembe (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Spain should be in the G8
According to the Monetary Fund as well as the World Bank ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) ) Spain is the eighth economic potency in the world, slightly richer than Canada, richer than Russia and even richer than Italy in terms of GDP per capita according to the European Union, all of them members of the G8.

Some reasons to be a member of the G7/8 are the economy, the political influence, the military influence (this explains why Russia is in) and to be a democracy (this explains why China is out).

When it comes to have influence in the world there is no doubt that Spain is important (probably even more than Canada or Italy):

- The current economical, cultural and political influence of Spain in all its old colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire), about all in Latin America, is unquestionable and incomparable with a country like Canada or Italy.

- Spain is the 3rd largest foreign investor in the world. In the list of largest companies of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue) Spain has four companies (Telefonica, Repsol, Banco Santander and Banco BBVA), on the other hand Canada has just one (Royal Bank of Canada).

- Spain is a responsible foreign country which is increasing its official development assistance to the developing countries, currently 0,41% of GNI 5,103 mill $ (http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs), more than Canada or Italy.

- Spain is a very active NATO member and it’s currently part of several military missions in the world in order to defend security and freedom (Afghanistan, Congo, Lebanon, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Chad http://www.mde.es/contenido.jsp?id_nodo=4367&&&keyword=&auditoria=F ). Here an example to see the importance of the Spanish army; few people know that only nine countries in the world have some aircraft carrier ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service ) , Spain is one of them (not Canada, Germany nor Japan), an aircraft carrier is absolutely necessary to keep a war far away from your territory.

Some detractors of Spain says there are enough members from Europe in the G8, moreover Spain is a member of the European Union so it’s somehow represented by the EU right now. However, the EU can’t vote in the G8 summits and unfortunately up to now each country in Europe has their own opinion so Spain should be in, otherwise only the European Union should be in the G8 (without UK, France, Germany and Italy).

In the past some G8 European members said that Spain was receiving funds from the European Union so it had no sense Spain would be in a club of rich countries, but since some years ago, when countries like Poland or Hungary joined the EU, Spain has lost those funds, and now Spain has to contribute to help economically those new eastern countries.

There are three “English” countries in the G8, however there isn't any “Spanish” country in the G8 meanwhile the Spanish is the third most important language in the world (after Chinese and English).

Now, when the last G20 summit (G8 + emerging countries) has taken place in Washington to deal with the financial crisis, Spain has had to lobby on its European neighbours in order to be guest to the summit and it would be an injustice if the G8 is not enlarged to Spain so as to create a new G9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanrcm (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

_____________________________________


 * You fail to understand what the G8 is. It is not a top league of anything; there is no right to join, automatic or not; there is not a way to qualify (like athletes qualify for the Olympics). Think of it as a club. The members decide who joins (in effect the USA), so it doesn't matter if Spain or any other country outshines existing members; if you ain't invited, you ain't in and that's it. Emeraude (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

_____________________________________


 * I see your point, as I've typed the G8 is a club of rich countries, and as in every select club its members don't want more members, because the more members the club has, the less power its members have. This doesn't contradict the fact Spain deserves to join that club.--Juanrcm (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

_____________________________________

canada doesn't just have one company. The value of all it's fortune 500 banks (5 banks bank of nova scotia, royal bank, bank of montreal, toronto dominion bank, cibc) and insurance companies is higher than Spain's. Canada's top 5 banks value is about 195 billion dollars Spain's top 5 banks have a value of about 212 billion dollars. Canada fortune 500 insurance companies have a value of about 94 billion dollars Spain's fortune 500 insurance companies have a value of about 10 billion dollars. Canada has one of the largest aircraft companies in the world bombardier. Canada's gdp per capita is the 2nd highest out of the world's 10 biggest economies. Canada's exports are almost the same as the UK. Spain's exports are about 60-65 %. Canada has more fortune 500 companies than Italy, Russia, and Spain. Canada has one of the best nuclear programs in the world. They helped China and India start their nuclear programs. Canada has a bigger stock exchange. nominal gdp is not smaller they are both between 1.4 and 1.5 trillion dollars. The difference in gdp per capita is about 36 % the difference in nominal gdp is about 1 %. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

_____________________________________


 * Some figures are better for Canada and others for Spain, most of the times it depends on the source. The Monetary Fund and the World Bank are independent institutions and very respectable as well, and both of them say that Spain is the 8th economy and Canada is the 9th, that’s all. About the nuclear topic, Spain decided some years ago not to build more nuclear factories because of its risks, They preferred to increase the renewable energy production. Now, the biggest producer of this type of ecological energy in the world is a spanish company called Iberdrola.--Juanrcm (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the difference in size does matter because in 2003 Spain got back the 8th place from Canada and a had a nominal gdp a little bigger like it did last year but by 2006 Canada's ecnomoy was bigger again. until one country has a gdp a lot bigger neither should be admitted into the g8 based on nominal gdp alone. Canada makes some of the best nuclear reactors and has the second oldest nuclear technology program.  china and india started their nuclear programs with canada's nuclear reactors.


 * Enough now. This page is for discussing the ARTICLE, not for debates on who should or should not be in the G8. For that, go to a forum somewhere, but don't do it here. Emeraude (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

G9 sentence in Structure and Activities
I don't believe it is justified to say that it could be called the G9. It's not up to us to define what to call it; it isn't the G9. Thus, the sentence is inaccurate and potentially misleading. The EU/EC doesn't host summits so has a unique, but different, degree of membership when compared to the full G8 member countries. Djembe (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

canada gives more to the un spain had a larger gdp than canada in 2003
but lost that position in 2006 to canada. that's how it has been for a lot of the last decade both countries switch positions every couple years because their economies are very close in size. why didn't the g8 replace spain with canada in 2003 ? for the same reason it won't in the near future because their nominal gdp's are too close to call and until one distances itself from the other they will probably switch positions again. all the other key economic indicators (nuclear energy, trade, oil, energy production, gdp per capita, influence in the us market, number of billionaires) canada is a lot bigger. reuters is owned by a canadian company. canada contributes more to the un.

This is irrelevant. 67.193.145.124 (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

article and reference cleanup doesn't give you an excuse to delete whole conributions with references
g8 member facts have references. if the endnotes aren't properly done then you either use the reference to correct that or don't do anything.

Stop complaining about Spain not being in the G8
Spain once overtook Canada's economy a few years back. Canada overtook it again. There is barely a margin of difference between the two countries, and has the potential to change at any time. Canada is in the G8, Spain is not. Besides, there is more to it then just 'Who has the biggest GDP'. It's more of a club of those who have the most influence. I saw one girl, I think 'Jan' was her name, listing useless statistics like 'which countries speak Spanish'. Countries in South America may speak Spanish, but Canada put far more foreign investment in them than Spain. I'm not bashing Spain, I'm just bringing some clear headed thinking over some of the nationalism that seems to foster around the issue of 'Who's bigger and better?" Lemniwinks (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don’t understand what’s the problem with Spain. Nobody is saying that Canada shouldn’t be in the G8, but Spain can be in the G8 in a near future because of the evidences.


 * “Spain once overtook Canada's economy a few years back. Canada overtook it again.”
 * It isn’t entirely true. In the 1990s Spain and Canada exchanged the 8th position twice, and in 2005 Spain overtook Canada once again. Right now Spain is in the 8th position, Canada is in the 9th position. (Here’s the evidence:)


 * “Canada put far more foreign investment in South America than Spain.”
 * FALSE, Where did you read that?. Spain is the second largest foreign investor in Latin America, the first one is EEUU. In the list of largest foreign invertors in the world Spain is in the 6th position, Canada in the 11th. (Here’s the evidence: ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solemb (talk • contribs) 14:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the World Bank, in 2012 Canada's net outflows of FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) were 3.1% of GDP. For Spain in the same year, only 0.4%. So even if what you say about Spain investing more in Latin America, it's moot. The fact remains Spain is not in the G8 - and likely never will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.145.124 (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Original research
I have removed the paragraph as original research: "The international press features recurring news stories about the G8, which refers to a 'group of eight' composed of nine members.<:ref>European Union: EU and the G8 As the G6 evolved across the decades, something unforeseen happened in the way the group is conventionally perceived. The 2008 summit of world leaders in Hokkaido, Japan was universally identified as the '34th G8 summit;' however, this ordinal number implies a process of counting backwards through the years, conflating what might have been clear distinctions.<:ref>Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA): List of summits, 1-25; G7/8 summits."

The first link is the front page of the EU page on their delegation to Japan. The second link is a "EU and the G8", and explicitly states, "The European Commission is a unique supranational organisation – not a sovereign Member State – hence the name G8 “Group of Eight Nations”, rather than G9." The third and final link is a list of summits, with no commentary about numbering whatsoever. In short, nothing in these refs supports the central assertion of "something unforeseen" and "a process of counting backwards through the years, conflating what might have been clear distinctions". I have removed the paragraph as original research. - BanyanTree 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I drafted this dubious paragraph. When I wrote it, I didn't construe my contribution as unhelpful original research; but I do see the point Banyan Tree is making. In this context, please see Conflation#Conventional conflations.


 * If Banyan Tree is correct in pointing out that I've misconstrued WP:OR in the paragraph above, then I worry a bit that my rationale in the following may be flawed as well? --Tenmei (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

G8+1? members? participants? leaders

 * The beginnings of this sub-section thread were copied from Lucy-marie's talk page and from Tenmei's talk page.
 * See also above -- Talk:G8#EU ...?
 * See also above -- Talk:G8#G8+? ...?

Lucy-marie -- I disagree with your most recent edit to 29th G8 summit; and I would dispute similar edits in articles about the other G8 summits. Last year, I thought your views had merit, of course; but since that time, I've researched this subject more fully.

As I see it, our small dispute is limited to your questions about how best to characterize the participation of the European Union's chief official? Perhaps we can find a way to work together to move beyond this temporary impasse? --Tenmei (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tenmei -- In my view it is OR and un-attributed to any individuals or group of individuals. I also think it is incredibly unsightly to have + on a separate line all of its own. I think that The individual members countries should be in the list of members and the EU should be grouped with the other international organisations, that is because it does not take part in all areas of the discussions, namely the political discussions. In my view only member countries which take part in all areas of the talks should be listed in the permanent G8 members section. the rest are just invitees, no matter how long standing or accepted that they will turn up is.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lucy-marie -- Our disagreement needs to be examined more closely.


 * I understand your arguable point-of-view about the "G8+" orthography; but in our Wikipedia context, the following section from 35th G8 summit would seem to be on-point because the Italian government website uses the "G8+":
 * The Italian presidency of the G8 varies the summit's working methods and the numbers of participants depending on the subject under consideration. This "variable geometry structure" diverges from the traditional G8 format. The involvement of different actors at different stages goes further than the idea of a simple "G8+?" After an initial meeting of the "historic core" leaders of what is understood as the traditional G8), the agenda will broaden and the number of participants will be expanded accordingly.  The leaders of G8 countries and G5 countries will be joined by a delegation from Egypt and a representative group of African countries.<:ref name="frattini1">Frattini, Franco. "Summits of the ‘big’ countries growing in importance but the G8 continues to play a strategic role," Il Messaggero. April 2, 2009.
 * I construe this use of "G8+" by Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini as relevant in justifying its use in our Wikipedia context.


 * As for your other point, I would have thought the added in-line citations would be sufficient to address your objections ...?


 * You allowed the following sentence to stand unchanged:
 * A. In addition, the President of the European Commission has been formally included in summits since 1981.<:ref name="reuters_what">Reuters: "Factbox: The Group of Eight: what is it?", July 3, 2008.


 * However, you deleted the following:
 * B. The composition of the G8 summit is a perennial topic. The G8 summits after 1997 decided to make the President of the European Commission a permanently welcome participant in all meetings and decision-making, which means that this G8 summit has nine essential participants. 4
 * C. *🇪🇺 European Union - President Jacques Santer<:ref name="ec1">


 * I would propose restoring what you have deleted at 23rd G8 summit et al.


 * In trying to figure out your point-of-view, I wondered if you might be placing too much emphasis on the commonly-encountered phrase " member of the G8"? An equally conventional way to describe the summits uses the term "G8 participant " or "G8 leader ".  Regardless of how you parse the concept of "member" or "participant" or "leader", the fact remains that the EU presidents have been a consistent attendees in the G8 summits since 1976.


 * In practical terms, I see is as a mistake to remove this element from the composition of the summit discussions; and in wiki-logic terms, I would have thought the posted citations provided adequate support for "G8+1" in this series of articles. If not, why not?
 * Compare leaders at the 24th G8 summit, e.g., the NINE " Leaders profiles" in official website (1998)?


 * Bottom line: Each summit produces a traditional "family photo" and each one has included the EU leader since 1976.


 * For these reasons, I would want to undo your recent edits. If you still think my views are wrong, please help me understand how I'm failing to grasp something essential. --Tenmei (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I say just include them in the international organisations section. Do not add the perennial issue stuff as that is OR. As it is perennial issue considered by who? and since when? The only difference between the EU and say the WTO and the UN as international organisations is they have been invited for a longer period of time. If you want to explain the attendance of the EU at summits do on it the main G8 page rather than including the same questionable statement on each summit page. Please if you do explain the EU attendance do not use weasel words like the has been "considered" a "perennial" issue as these words impenetrable and un-attributed. I have no problem including the EU and other such organisations, just not with individual sovereign member states, but in their own international organisations section.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lucy-marie -- In general, your point-of-view is logically coherent. It takes on new meaning for me now that I'm re-examining my writing in light of WP:Synthesis. The conjunction of your comments and those of BanyanTree cased me to re-visit WP:OR several times; and I begin to have a glimmer of an idea about what to do next.  You narrowly construe this policy statement -- perhaps too narrowly; however, your analysis does suggest a potentially useful "road map" for moving beyond the impasse represented by Talk:G8#EU and Talk:G8#G8+? above. Your response gives me something to mull over ....


 * In specific, I don't understand "perennial" as a wiki-weasel word; but I'll mull that over too. --Tenmei (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Perennial is only a weasel word in this context not usually in general.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lucy-marie -- Rather than continuing to convince you to set aside your objections across the entire array of G8 summits, let me focus only on the up-coming 35th G8 summit which, as you know, is organized by the Italians. The Italian government appears to perceive the G8 in a manner which is not congruent with your viewpoint, as I understand it.


 * In anticipation of the G8 Agriculture Ministers' Meeting on April 19, a website has been created -- Home page. Reading across the top of the Home page from left to right:


 * The "G8" webpage -- includes the EU along with Italy, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States of America and the Czech Presidency in Office of the EU


 * The "G8 Agricultural Ministers' meeting" webpage -- identifies attendees as the Ministers of Agriculture of the G8 Countries (Italy, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, USA), the Vice Minister of agriculture of the Czech Republic in his capacity as Vice President in Office of the EU Council, the EU Commissioner for Agriculture Mariann Fischer Boel and the Ministers of Agriculture of: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa and Argentina, Australia and Egypt. African Union, FAO, UN High Level Task Force on Food Security, IFAD, OECD, World Bank and WFP have also been invited ....


 * The "International organizations" webpage -- does not include the EU along with the African Union, FAO, UN High Level Task Force on Food Security, IFAD, OECD, World Bank, WFP


 * The "Programme" webpage -- reiterates the above distinctions amongst the participants which are inconsistent with your views as I understand them, e.g.,
 * G8: Italy, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States of America, European Commission, Czech Presidency of the EU
 * G5: Brasil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa
 * Argentina, Australia, Egypt
 * International Organization: African Union, High Level UN Task Force on Global Food Security, IFAD, OECD, World Bank, WFP


 * On this basis, I feel justified in moving the EU to a position in the article which I suspect will seem troubling to you. Can you explain why I should not conform the organization of the article in ways consistent with Italian websites developed by the Italian government in 2009.


 * The threads developed on the talk page above show that you are not alone in your view about how to handle the EU in the G8 context, but the overwhelming offers of evidence seem to be presented by those who disagree with you.


 * Are you able or willing to provide credible sources which help explain how the Italian government could have been so wrong in creating these web pages?


 * Instead of proving anything, this diff aims to disprove the point-of-view you have chosen to espouse, i.e, that, in the context of the Wikipedia article about the upcoming G8 summit at La Maddalena, the EU is just another international organization, indistinguishable from the African Union, High Level UN Task Force on Global Food Security, IFAD, OECD, World Bank, WFP ...?  --Tenmei (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lucy-marie -- On a separate matter, I have the impression that you object to the use of the term "plus" and/or the symbol "+" ...? In that context, I notice a recent interview of the German Foreign Minister in Der Zeit uses the "plus"


 * I saw early on that the G8 had lost much of its legitimacy. Nowadays we have to do more to involve states like China and India, Brazil and South Africa – as well as the Muslim world. I therefore proposed a "G8 plus 8". The fact that the G20 is now tackling the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis is in line with this logic." -- see German Federal Foreign Office: "Interview given by Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier to the "ZEIT" newspaper," April 8, 2009.


 * Does this small example help you to re-think your objections? --Tenmei (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

July 7th Bombings
"The 7 July 2005 London bombings were timed to coincide with the 31st G8 summit in Scotland." Someone knows this as fact do they? (London and Gleneagles are in differnt countries some 450 miles apart). Someone editing Wikipedia must have been part of the planning. It can't be one of the dead Muslims doing the edits, regardless they are vinidcated by some of the bombs being under the trains - I'm starting to smell a rat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaseFace (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

G8 AND HIS BATTLE ACES
G8 AND HIS BATTLE ACES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.232.209 (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

G8 member facts
This section is interesting, maybe it could put things in perspective for China. For example: largest population, rank in GDP, etc.

But mostly, I think the sentence "China is the second most important country in the world to addressing a wide variety of global problems" should be changed.

This is obviously very subjective. Some would say it is the 1st. Some would ask who is the 1st. I think it is better to go with measurable facts (GDP, export, stock market value, assets, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.217.138.194 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, looking at a few key issues, China may be the most important country in the world (e.g. solving the North Korea issue). It is by far the largest consumer of a large number of commodities. Etc Hence G-2. Though, overall, USA remains the strongest power by a large margin. At worst, China is the second most important country in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.60.7 (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

G20 now supersedes the G8.
CaribDigita (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Commentary: Can the Caribbean rely on the G20? - By Ronald Sanders, Published on Friday, October 2, 2009, CaribbeanNetNews Online

Navbox consensus
There are plausible reasons for modifying the navbox templates at the bottom of the page at G8. 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?
 * template name coould be G8&mdash;Template:G8? At present, this is a redirect to Template:Db-g8, one of the Speedy deletion templates
 * new template would be similar to APEC&mdash;Template:Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
 * this would mean removing G8 nations&mdash;Template:G8 nations?
 * this would mean removing G8 summits&mdash;Template:G8 summits?

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.
 * this would mean removing Current G8 Leaders&mdash;Template:Current G8 Leaders?
 * this would mean removing G8-Foreign&mdash;Template:G8-Foreign?
 * this would mean removing G8-Finance&mdash;Template:G8-Finance?
 * this would mean removing G8-Defense&mdash;Template:G8-Defense?
 * this would mean removing G8-Justice&mdash;Template:G8-Justice?
 * this would mean removing G8-Interior&mdash;Template:G8-Interior?

C.Standardize/harmonize to "G8" without hyphen? "G7" and "G6" without hyphens?
 * 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?


 * 21 in group> Template:APEC?
 * Template:Current APEC Leaders?
 * 18 in groupp> Template:G-15 nations?
 * Template:Group of 15 Leaders?
 * 8 in group> Template:D8 nations?
 * 4 in group>Template:BRIC countries?
 * Template:Current BRIC Leaders?
 * Template:BRIC summits?
 * 3 in group>Template:Trilateral meeting?
 * 2 in group> Template:G-3?
 * No navboxes yet> G77•G33•G24•G10•G5
 * 3 in group>Template:Trilateral meeting?
 * 2 in group> Template:G-3?
 * No navboxes yet> G77•G33•G24•G10•G5
 * No navboxes yet> G77•G33•G24•G10•G5
 * No navboxes yet> G77•G33•G24•G10•G5


 * 20 in group> Template:G20?
 * Template:Current G20 Leaders?
 * Template:G-20 leaders' summits?
 * 9 in group> Template:G8 nations?
 * Template:Current G8 Leaders?
 * Template:G8-Foreign?
 * Template:G8-Finance?
 * Template:G8-Defense?
 * Template:G8-Justice?
 * Template:G8-Interior?
 * Template:G8 summits?
 * Template:G8-Interior?
 * Template:G8 summits?

What is the best next step for this article? for similar articles? --Tenmei (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

G7 1976 Summit held in Dorado, Puerto Rico USA
I have corrected the table identifying the venue for the 1976 summit as Dorado, Puerto Rico. The summit was held at the now defunct Dorado Beach Hotel in the municipality of Dorado, which is a couple of towns (Toa Baja and Cataño) away from San Juan and is not even considered a suburb of the capital city of San Juan. President Ford, the summit's host, for example, did not even set foot in San Juan since Air Force One landed at what was then called San Juan International Airport, actually located in Carolina, PR, and was then flown over San Juan on Marine One to the grounds of the Dorado Beach Hotel, then a Rockefeller Family-owned Rockresort, which he chose as the locale in the United States for this second summit. Pr4ever (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pr4ever -- Let's agree that the facts are exactly as presented in your diff. Then WP:V would suggest that your edit needs to be reverted -- not because it's wrong, but because it is not verified by a reliable source. In contrast, please consider the relevant inline citations embedded in the introductory paragraph of 2nd G7 summit:
 * The 2nd G7 Summit was held at San Juan, Puerto Rico between June 27 and 28, 1976.<:ref name="j-mofa1">Japan, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA): Summit Meetings in the Past; although this article is named "2nd G7 summit" because it is the second in a series of summits which will become continuing, it is actually the first time that the G7 meets The venue for the summit meetings was Dorado Beach Resort, which is near San Juan, Puerto Rico.<:ref>Shabecoff, Philip. "Go-Slow Policies Urged by Leaders in Economic Talks; Closing Statement Calls for Sustained Growth Coupled With Curbs on Inflation; Ford's Aims Realized; 7 Heads of Government Also Agree to Consider a New Body to Assist Italy Co-Slow Economic Policies Urged by 7 Leaders," New York Times. June 29, 1976; excerpt, "SAN JUAN, P.R., June 28 President Ford and six other leaders of industrial democracies announced here today that they had agreed to pursue the objective of sustained economic growth.... The leaders met at the palm fringed Dorado Beach Resort near here."
 * A verifying inline citation has been added to this location cell in the table. --Tenmei (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have found several reliable sources that attest to the fact that the summit was held in Dorado, which is separated from San Juan by the municipalities of Guaynabo, Cataño, followed by Toa Baja. The Dorado Beach Hotel site is 13 miles away from San Juan's border with Guaynabo, a not insignificant distance in an island only 100 miles long and 35 miles wide.

For example, the US Embassy in Japan correctly places the summit in Dorado:

http://aboutusa.japan.usembassy.gov/e/jusa-usj-chronology.html

An AP story quoted in the following link also correctly places the summit in Dorado:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-21114.html

Nobody in Puerto Rico would confuse or substitute San Juan for Dorado, which are as far away from each other as Yardley, PA is from Princeton, NJ, for example.

I would suggest that the name of the venue in the table should be switched back to Dorado with the US Embassy in Japan and AP story as more than adequate bscking for the factually correct name of the venue, no matter how many mistaken sources may back the incorrect reference to San Juan, where not one single summit meeting was held and which host nation President Ford did not even visit. Pr4ever (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Pr4ever -- Yes. Your verifying citations help to resolve any questions. The relevant articles have now been corrected; and they are clear. Each explains that Dorado, Puerto Rico was the venue for the 2nd G7 summit.  See
 * G8
 * 2nd G7 summit
 * Dorado, Puerto Rico
 * This thread is a good example of cooperation which produces a good result. --Tenmei (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thank you very much! Pr4ever (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

G8 is not successor to G7, but separate
The G7 is still active (in contrast to the older G6). The G8 is separate from it - like G20 is separate from G8. Maybe G8 will be succeeded by G20 (like G6 was succeeded by G7), but this is not done yet.

Currently the article is written as if G8 succeeded G7, instead of supplemented it. Most of the history section should be moved to G7 (as it is about G6 and G7) - here should remain only the part about the creation of G8. Alinor (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Alinor --  Please reconsider what you mean by "group of seven."  Could it be that what you perceive as a problem arises because there are more than one ways in which G7 is used in verifiable reliable sources? Please join me in re-examining the this issue in the following context:


 * Heads of state
 * G5 = France + Germany + Japan + United Kingdom + United States
 * G6 = G5 + Italy compare 1st G6 summit
 * G7 = G6 + Canada compare 2nd G7 summit
 * G7 = G6 + Canada + EU compare 3rd G7 summit
 * G8 = G7+Russia compare 23rd G8 summit


 * Finance ministers
 * G5
 * G6=G5+1
 * G7=G6+1
 * G8=G7+1


 * Disambiguation
 * G6 (disambiguation)?
 * G7 (disambiguation)?
 * G8 (disambiguation)?


 * G20 Washington summit
 * G20 London summit
 * G20 Pittsburgh summit
 * G20 Toronto summit
 * G20 Seoul summit


 * G20 finance ministers meet many times in many international locations


 * Can you think of a way to clarify the problems you see. This can be a helpful step in a constructive direction?  I look forward to working with you to mitigate the problem you have identified.  --Tenmei (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alinor -- Let me try using a different approach. You correctly observed that "the article is written as if G8 succeeded G7 ...."  Yes, the G8 did succeed the G7 if you construe the term in the context of summits attended by heads of state since 1975. In the context established by Group of Five#20th century G5, a wider perspective emerges. --Tenmei (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. If finance ministers meetings and head of states meetings are considered separate - and there isn't a G7 head of state meeting (without Russia) - then the current arrangement is OK - but I think the text should be reworked in a way that this distinction is clear (currently it is written as "for governments", mentiones head of states, but then also adds "G8 ministers also meet throughout the year, such as the G7/8 finance ministers (who meet four times a year), G8 foreign ministers, or G8 environment ministers." - are these ministerial meetings G7 and/or G8 (e.g. there are separate G7 and G8 meetings or some/all are G7-only or G8-only)? Alinor (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Official website
I reverted three entirely reasonable edits here and here and here. Was this arguably justified?

Explanation: The French have created a combined G20/G8 website designed in a rectangular format. Among the section choices offered at the top, the G8 section is at the far right. Although the page design is displayed fully on my rectangular desktop monitor, there is a minor display problem with my older laptop which has a square monitor. In the square format, the G8 option is not immediately visible; and initially, I misunderstood, thinking I'd reached the wrong website. It seems to me that others may encounter this minor confusion. IMO, this G8 "home page" is more appropriately displayed in the external links of this specific article, e.g.,
 * Good -- see "Everything you want to know on the G8"
 * Less good -- see "What exactly is the G20?

I hope to avert any awkward moments similar to the one I experienced. If not, why? Do you see my point? If not, I will try to explain again using different words. --Tenmei (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Flags in table
This issue was addressed and resolved here in 2008. Consensus may change; and further discussion is needed before disturbing the well-settled status quo. See also Talk:BRICS#Consolidated discussion about flag icons. --Tenmei (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline
Not sure if this is being read as an indicator of the decline of the G8 but;



Putin has cancelled his attendance at the next G8 summit citing general busyness. Quoting from the article; "Mr Putin's first trip abroad could now be to China in early June."

Read on 11, April, 2012.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Asian economies
To move this article forward, there needs to be an explanation as to why the likes of China and South Korea are excluded from the G8. Currently the article focuses on the past, but very little about the present or future of this organisation. With the ECC about to implode and North American economies smouldering to a damp squibs, more should be added (from experts) as to why this organisation is now looking more and more anachronistic in today's political and financial world.31.52.210.174 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

-South Koreas and Chinas growth are heavily slowing down. America had 2% its remarkable being so rich like them while korea grew 1.8% and its a very poor country in comparison to america. Russia, canada and japan are also heavily growing its more than enough to balance europes slow down.--Tollsissac (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29#List

1974
The vast upheavals of that year are the major reason for the G8. No one in the Western block was still there at the end of the year. Wilson had been out of power for four years, and the rest were minor players at the beginning of the year. They needed to get to know each other.Ericl (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

bi partisanism
i NOTICE THAT THE SENTIMENT HERE IN HIGHLY BIASED.....

Just as in the media.. one side only is addressed... this is not only creates lopsided view but compromised the who;le truth in general.

As for the statement re: russia threatened with dismissal from G8...

this shows a lack of understanding of the membership laws  and their implementation... to sum briefly...

If Russia shows ( proves) a prior violation of g8 member treaty... ( 94 nuke removal treaty  US ,Ukraine ,Russia,  " non interference" signatories)

ie ..that the USA VIOLATED treaty ( non interference) by involvement in ukraine.... basically nuland/pyatt conversation proves it. firstly

// russia will counter charge USA according to g8 rules.

Since we are all adults here we know USA sponsered and funded this " cookie" revolution  it will be hard for them to proceed straight faced.

one thing for sure.....USA some pissed!!!! the revolution they bought with cookies ended up handing crimea to russia on platter for cookies.

NSA greatest intelligence gathering entity on the planet... they can predict events weeks even months ahead..... they just cant predict tomorrow..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C28:194:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:81DC (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Lock the article
We need to lock the article, since first attempts have been made to jeopardize here. Using sentences like: "... Russia has been thrown out ..." are far away from being an acceptable tone.

I also propose to suspend the admin who gravely neglect his duty of supervision or deliberately incite their own political opinion by not deleting this commit. (WMN83) 143.93.117.10 (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia has been suspended from the group for an indefinite time.

Time to lock the article.151.40.35.236 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia has not been suspended, only meeting was cancelled in Sochi. --198.23.79.155 (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia is suspended for an indefinite time.This is the common decision de facto of G7.For istance all italian media define Russia as SUSPENDED.That's more than 2 citations.Russia got Crimea but now is suspended from G8.In Italy that is an official member of the G8 from very long time it's official that Russia is SUSPENDED.RUSSIA IS SUSPENDED DE FACTO.I'm sorry for russians that vandalize the article. 151.40.82.54 (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Cite note 10 is broken
https://www..it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.televideo.rai.it%2Ftelevideo%2Fpub%2Fsolotesto.jsp%3Fpagina%3D150&ei=DZwpU5ejMaT9ygOkuIK4CA&usg=AFQjCNHuv-b6kPRo3R6hCNkBZBFfnY6QTA&bvm=bv.62922401,d.bGQ

It's a broken link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.234.2 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the UK Prime Minister David Cameron Russia should be expelled in the next G7+EU.This wouldn't be anymore a suspension but an expulsion.151.40.82.54 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia is suspended and is risking EXPULSION
It's lost time and propaganda to stop reality.This article will be locked with sanctions to Russia after the G7 + EU.151.40.82.54 (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

'''151.40.82.54 Your disruptive list of edits from 2013 to 2014 Ip addresses from Italy, all targeted as anti Russian, slamming disputived post and non acedemic source edits not supported for POV community. Your history reflects a lot of wikipedia abuse.'''

Your ip addresses:

March 17, 2014 - 151.40.95.82 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.95.82

April 2013 - Bocca Trabaria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bocca_Trabaria

March 2014 - 151.40.24.9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.24.9

March 2014 - 151.40.7.192 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.7.192

Sept 23, 2013 - 151.40.18.30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.18.30

Sept 15, 2013 - 151.40.55.125 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.55.125

March 18, 2014 - 151.40.35.236 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.35.236

March 18, 2014 - 151.40.9.149 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.9.149

March 17, 2014 - 151.40.72.141 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.72.141

March 16, 2014 - 151.40.14.179 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.14.179

March 16, 2014 - 151.40.83.17 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.83.17

March 15, 2014 - 151.40.69.199 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.69.199

March 15, 2014 - 151.40.34.218 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.34.218

March 15, 2014 - 151.40.120.19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.120.19

Feb 4, 2014 - 151.40.63.30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.63.30

Feb 4, 2014- 151.40.16.167 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.16.167

Dec 28, 2013 - 151.40.107.93 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.107.93

Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.27.25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.27.25

Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.64.77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.64.77

Dec 25, 2013 - 151.40.54.32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.54.32

Dec 23, 2013 - 151.40.41.170 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.41.170

Dec 22, 2013 - 151.40.9.139 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.9.139

Sept 8, 2013 - 151.40.102.200 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.102.200

August 14, 2013 - 151.40.125.50 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.125.50

May 10, 2013 - Mediolanum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mediolanum

Oct 22, 2013 - Glc72 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Glc72

May 21, 2013 - 151.40.11.180 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.11.180

May 14, 2013 - 151.40.59.151 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.59.151

May 14, 2013 - 151.40.60.108 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.60.108

May 11, 2013 - Bocca_Trabaria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bocca_Trabaria

unsourced content, as you did to G8. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--195.211.155.80 (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a right place to discuss editors. Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The G8 has not suspended Russia, it only cancelled the Sochi meeting in June.--198.23.70.230 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The Group of Eight (G8) is a forum
It doesn't exist at present .Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

G8 → G7 – The recent vote by group members is conclusive, without apparent condition or ability for Russia to remediate. The correct title for this article is now G7. Any objections? Ronnotel (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Strong Oppose The recent vote did not remove Russia from the G8, but only excluded them from the next meeting. They are still a member. JOJ  Hutton  21:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tentative oppose - let's wait and see? Red Slash 22:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose If anything the G7 page should be merged here (see below), as they are the same organization and Russia was only suspended. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OpposeI think the G8 and G7 articles should remain separate, but information from the current G8 article needs to move to the G7 article. Looking at the G7 article it appears that that group kept meeting separately from the G8. The G8 article still needs to include Russia as a member, and the last section can cover the boycott/disbanding/future news on the issue. -lissa 69.140.221.219 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment this is malformed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose we have a different article at G7, if you want to delete it, please use WP:AFD; G7+1 redirects here, but G8-1 does not. G7 (2014) also does not redirect here. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's too soon to make this change, let's see how things develop. Zarcadia (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

I noticed that the G8 article was changed to was (past tense) is that accurate or should that be reverted?--70.49.72.34 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why was Russia removed?
They are still a member of the G8, but the sources only confirm that they will not be invited to the next round of meetings, which was moved from Russia to another city in Europe. I forget which one and am too lazy to switch to another window and look it up, but am not too lazy to type all this extra explanation. Good fried.-- JOJ Hutton  21:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm compelled to agree. The G8 is, by definition, the G7 + Russia.  The Western nations have decided not to participate in the G8 format, meeting in the G7 format instead.  However, it is absurd to say that the Western nations expelled Russia from the G8.  If there is a dialog between the US, EU, and Russia  and the US and EU kicks Russia out of the meeting... is it still a dialog between the US, EU, and Russia?  No, it has become a dialog between the US and EU.  Without Russia it is not the G8... it is the G7.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.251.253 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I came to comment on the same thing. The title "G8" by definition includes Russia. Partially deleting Russia as a member from the article, makes the rest of the article not make sense. This article also seems to conflate G7 information with the G8 information. I would suggest a better structuring of both articles to put all information prior to 1997(8?) into the G7 article (which would presumably include the next meeting), and leave this article covering the G8, with Russia as a member. The last section can then follow the boycott and any further news. - lissa 69.140.221.219 (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added Russia it has been removed by a bunch of IPs now, suspension though does not mean permanent removal or expulsion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there are two things people are trying to do to this article to respond to Russia's suspension: either remove Russia from the list, or else (or in addition to?) merge G8 with G7. Both strike me as wrong. Once this becomes more clear, why can't we just say that the G8 isn't meeting right now, but only the G7 is? 'G8' and 'G7' name sets, not institutions. The G8 set is suspended for now (maybe one day we can say that it was a brief historical period); the G7 isn't.2601:B:C580:F45:226:6CFF:FE2E:33D (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It goes further though. Russia was removed from the member list and the map.  But without Russia it isn't the G8... it is the G7.  It doesn't make any sense to say that the Western countries expelled Russia from the G8.  Western countries are no longer participating in the G8 format with Russia; instead they have reverted to the G7 format without Russia.  To say it is the G8 but without Russia makes no sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.251.253 (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Because every country voted to ban Russia from the G-8 on the grounds that its Imperialistic adventure was illegal under international law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with G7
The G7 is not only the current name of the G8, but the G7 under its original name was the same organization as what became the G8. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Western countries are no longer participating in the G8 format with Russia; instead they have reverted to the G7 format without Russia. To say it is the G8 format without Russia makes no sense.

I think they should remain separate, but information from the current G8 article needs to move to the G7 article. Looking at the G7 article it appears that that group kept meeting separately from the G8. -lissa 69.140.221.219 (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like the G8 was just suspended in favor of the G7. Western leaders did not appear to announce today that the G8 is not going to come back when things die down. Obama: "We will suspend our participation in the G-8 until Russia changes course.”2601:B:C580:F45:226:6CFF:FE2E:33D (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

They are separate entities. If the article is factually correct (If it isn't that's another issue) the G7 kept meeting after the G8 was formed. It just wasn't dominant. It says they met in May 2013 when Russia joined in '98. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.235.172 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose the two articles are fairly substantial, no advantage is gained in merging them together, except to reduce coverage. IF these two entities are the same (which is not clear, considering there seems to be meetings after the conversion of the G7+1 into the G8 of just the G7); Then instead one should be a "History of" article, and the other the current state of article. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose A separate article for the G8 should remain because the G8 was an organization, although it is not anymore. To put this in perspective, the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement was superseded by the North American Free Trade Agreement, yet both of these organizations still have separate Wiki articles. Likewise, the European Economic Community was superseded by the European Union, yet it still has a separate article as well.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC))
 * I was about to make the same point. At this point in time the G8 is an historical organization, and should be represented as such. Perhaps refering to it as 'historical' or 'defunct' would be appropriate. Ancholm (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article should be retain for historical purposes, one can just simply add a "Succeeded By" tag on the info box. Furthermore, it has not been announced that the G8 will be "decommission," simply Russia would not be involved in the G8 for an indefinite period - pending the outcome of this political crisis they could invite Russia in the future. Also, it looks like the G7 article in question is a meeting of Finance Ministers not a metting of heads of state. --Txtrooper (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If Russia is not involved then it is not the G8. Correct:  The G7 nations have stopped participating in the G8 format with Russia.  Incorrect:  The G8 nations have stopped participating in the G8 format with Russia.173.79.251.253 (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Tentative oppose - Like Txtrooper mentioned above, the G7 article seems to be about a meeting every few years of the finance ministers of the respective countries whereas the G8 article is about a meeting every summer of the heads of state of the same countries (plus Russia, until now). It seems that although they differ by a single number, they are actually very different meetings. If the world decides to rename G8 to G7 then they will probably have to come up with a new name for the current G7 meeting of finance ministers. —Megiddo1013 14:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OpposeBoth are two different Groups for technical, political and historical purposes; As User:Txtrooper suggested G8 should be tagged by "Succeeded By".EconomicTiger (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In principle, all articles are possible: G7 (finance group) (currently G7), G7 (currently G8), and separate articles covering different periods of its history G8, G7 (1976-2014), and G6 (1975-1976). For the time being the simplest decision is to rename G8 into G7, and to rename G7 into something more specific like G7 (finance group). So Russia will remain in the history of G7. Maybe somebody will later create article G8 about this very period of history. Or it will be renamed back into G8 if Russia is returned back or somebody else is excepted instead of it. Oleksiy.golubov (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

However I personally think that Russia wont come back and that the name of the group will be still G8 counting the EU as the eight member, like in the G20, considering that the EU chaired a meeting for the first time.User Talk:Barjimoa
 * Oppose we indicate the 40th G7 summit meeting as the 40th like it is the same as the G8. And this is right in my view. The financial G7 is something different of the economic/political G7 then G8 and then again G7. For example there are also meetings of foreign ministers and other ministers in the G7/G8. This doesnt happen in the financial G7 that is specifically about finance ministers. I agree with Oleksiy.golubov (talk) when he says to change the name of the G7 into G7 (financial club). Then if Russia doesnt come back we can re-name this page in G7 without losing the history of Russia in this forum.


 * Support G6 does not have a separate article, and neither does G5 or "The Library Group". But it's all the same thing: And informal grouping of big countries. The name changes after how many are involved, but it is the same little "club" of countries. The articles should be merged, and it should be called what the group is currently called, ie G7. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

G8 or G7?
G8 should be locked. Edits are happening literally once a minute ever since Russia was expelled from the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia was not expelled from the group, cause this is unofficial organization which dont have regulations => obviously nobody can be expelled by somebody — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhmed Nazarbaijan (talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see by what mechanism Russia was supposedly expelled nor do any sources explain this. Was there a vote and, if so, under what rules of order?  Who voted for, against, or abstained?  Did Russia get a vote?  Where is the record of such a vote?  The sources reference no actual mechanism by which Russia was expelled, rather they quote politicians who make claims that Russia was expelled (in some cases) or suspended (in others).


 * Can someone please explain what formal mechanism the G8 has for expelling or suspending a member? What formal processes must be followed and were they followed in this case?  Or, if no actual such mechanism exists, what is the basis for claiming that Russia was 'expelled' or 'suspended'?  Not to sound too tongue in cheek but.. if there is no formal process for expelling members couldn't Russia just as easily say they expelled the G7?


 * Quoting directly from the source cited in the main page (NYT): “We will suspend our participation in the G-8 until Russia changes course,” the seven countries declared [...]  So the countries declared that they would stop participating in the G8; they did not declare that Russia was expelled according to the official statement.  173.79.251.253 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

G7 suspended their participation in G8, but promised to continue their collaboration as G7. Russia declared that it doesn't "cling to this format" either. It's natural to consider this new G7 as successor of G8 and not to create a new article, but to actualize this one, moving all references to Russia to the history part. Moreover, G7 had the same format in 1980s-1990s (the same countries without Russia), but we don't indeed create a different article about that period, incorporating the period to the history of the same club instead. Oleksiy.golubov (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But what is your reasoning for "moving all references to Russia to the history part" ? The G8 may be defunct... but Russia was always a member.  Shouldn't their name and flag be displayed, have them shown on the map, etc. ?  Just because the G7 stopped participating in the G8 forum does not change the fact that the G8, by definition, includes Russia.173.79.251.253 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * G8 exists no more. Instead we have G7, as we used to have prior to 1997. Now Russia is only a part of history of G7. Alternatively we can preserve this article "G8" covering period 1997-2014, and create 3 new articles "G7 after 2014", "G7 prior to 1997", and "G6" (in 1970s, without Canada). But to me this seems absurd, as these clubs though unofficial are clearly each other's successors. Oleksiy.golubov (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the are not "clearly" each other's successor. What is your basis for this?  How do you explain that, after the formation of the G8, the G7 has continued to meet separately?  They are clearly two separate meeting formats.173.79.251.253 (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What we call G7 in Wikipedia now and what persisted to exist during the G8 period is a completely different club, consisting of finance ministers, not presidents. Now that article should be renamed into G7 (financial club) or something like that, while the name G7 should be reserved for the more famous club, consisting of presidents. Oleksiy.golubov (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no G7 outside of the meeting of finance ministers. That is the group which held an 'emergency session' in Belgium.  The Presidents were present because of a coinciding Nuclear Summit.  It is interesting that this 'emergency session' was the first time the G7 met outside a G7 nation.  Regardless, it was officially a meeting of the G7 finance ministers.  There is no "more famous club, consisting of presidents".

The Europeans own statement indicates two things: First, the G7 and G8 are distinct entities. Second, Russia was not suspended or expelled but, rather, the Europeans suspended their participation. It is incorrect to say that Russia was suspended or expelled.

G7 Official Statement: We note that Russia's actions in Ukraine also contravene the principles and values on which the G7 and the G8 operate. As such, we have decided for the time being to suspend our participation in activities associated with the preparation of the scheduled G8 Summit in Sochi in June, until the environment comes back where the G8 is able to have meaningful discussion."173.79.251.253 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Angela Markel refers to it as "The G7 and former G8 group" now --LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 20:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge request 6 June 2016

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that the article Group of Seven (G7) is merged into Group of Eight because they duplicate material (WP:MERGEREASON). When/if the merge is complete I will initiate a separate discussion about the name of the page because that may be contentious for reasons that might complicate a discussion about merging the 2 articles. I am calling for discussion because merger proposals and page move proposals for these articles have occurred before, but time has passed and the situation is much clearer now. The proposal is Group of Seven (G7) is merged into Group of Eight with some material going to List of G8 Leaders. Please state Merge or Don't Merge and give your reason below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk • contribs) 06:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Group of Seven (G7) purports in the hatnote to be "about about the meetings of finance ministers and central bank governors of 7 major economies". In fact it is not (and doesn't say so in the lead); it is more generally about the overarching group G7/G8.
 * The G7 became the G8 with the addition of Russia, but now (2016) temporarily meets in G7 format without Russia. The G7 and the G8 are successor bodies of the same thing:  separate articles infer that they are different, but they are not. Maintaining separate articles is likely to confuse a reader.
 * Group of Seven (G7) contains a large table of annual summits which duplicates the table in Group of Eight. It also contains a section "Leaders" which should be merged into List of G8 leaders. It also has a section "Heads of State and Government and EU representatives, as of 2016" which (as well as not being relevant to an article "about about the meetings of finance ministers [etc]") duplicates the "Current Leaders" section of Group of Eight.
 * What remains is text about "History", "Function", "Work", "Criticism" and a table of "Member country data" that could be merged.
 * Merge - There is so much duplicate information in these two articles - it's extremely confusing. The two articles are clearly talking about the same group many times. Moony 22 22:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. There are currently two separate articles about the same organization, and it's quite confusing. (The lede and hatnotes say that the G8 and G7 are separate organizations, but from the article content it is clear that they are the same thing). The name of the article should, in my opinion, be Group of Seven (which is currently a redirect). Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 16:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't merge.They are 2 different meetings.The G7 is a pure economic forum.The G8 doesn't exist anymore and it should be named G7 political forum.Merging would be a disaster for culture.I hope somebody will stop you.They can't be merged because they are totally different even if the number is the same and the states are the same.If somebody is unable to realize the 2 articles,he /she can go to school again.151.40.90.18 (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, the relationship between the G7 and the G8 is complicated, from this European Commission page it is clear that when the G8 was the G8 there was also a separate meeting of the G7 finance ministers. The G7 finance ministers usually meet four times a year, once before G8 head of state/government summits and then three other times a year, whereas the G8 only meets once a year (unless an extraordinary meeting is held). There is a reason why the G8 page only lists heads of state/government but the G7 page lists finance ministers and heads of central banks. However, both the G7 and G8 meetings have the same origins so in this sense they could be considered to be the same organisation, though having a shared history doesn't mean they are still the same organisation either. Also should we be merging the G7 article into the G8 when it looks like the expulsion of Russia may be permanent from the group. In summary this raises two questions:
 * (1) Do we have treat the head of state/government meetings and the finance meetings as separate organisations or do we have one page which covers both?
 * (2) If we merge, do we merge into G8 or into G7. If we don't merge should would still move G8 to G7 and then move the current G7 page to "G7 (finance ministers)" (as it is referred to on the G8 page hatnate).
 * Ebonelm (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition to by comment above its also worth noting that the same proposal was made in 2014 and rejected on the grounds the groups are separate. I think that the expulsion of Russia from the G8 has resulted in the G7 article having incorrect information added which may just need to be removed to reflect the actual differences. Ebonelm (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is very clear from the European Commission page that you cite that the G7 and the G8 are the same: the website calls the group "G7/G8" in the title and says "...Russia joined what then became the G8". To answer your questions:
 * (1) one page could cover both head of state/government meetings and the finance meetings, or the new merged page could spawn a separate page. That separate page should not contain mass duplication of material like the current G7 page does. Actually there seems to be little on Wikipedia that's actually about the separate finance minister meetings.
 * (2) Merging G7 into G8 would have the same effect of merging G8 into G7 as far as article content is concerned. In the proposal, I propose merging them now to get that done and sort out the duplication, and discussing the new title later (which could be G7, G8, G7/8, or another title).
 * Could you now support a merge? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well if we're going to create a single page and then create a spawn page straight away then I would come down on the side of don't merge, whats the point when we could just remove the incorrect information on the G7 page? Ebonelm (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We could spawn a new page about finance meetings. I, personally, wouldn't create a new page, or modify the one we've supposedly got, because there's not enough material, and in the 2 years since the last merge proposal the 2 articles haven't got distinctly different. The current G7 page purports to be about finance ministers' meetings but isn't, it's about the same thing as the G8 page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Russia is cited in both the articles too many times and it risks to be propaganda.The 2 articles mustn't be merged because the meetings happen in 2 different ways and moments.Russia hasn't ever been in the  G7  that is ECONOMIC (its net national financial wealth is mosltly 0 and isn't considered at all an advanced country by IMF)  and just for a period in the  G8  that is POLITICAL.151.40.90.18 (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You made your point above, IP user, and thank you, but your opinion is not backed up by anything in the actual article Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You know what i think about the whole.Thanks again.151.40.37.105 (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Don t merge.G7 and G8 are totally different93.103.9.68 (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Group of Eight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070226165606/http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/union/showpage_en_union.external.g8.php to http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/union/showpage_en_union.external.g8.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/union/showpage_en_union.Harry.g8.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070226165606/http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/union/showpage_en_union.external.g8.php to http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/union/showpage_en_union.external.g8.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715203839/http://aboutusa.japan.usembassy.gov/e/jusa-usj-chronology.html to http://aboutusa.japan.usembassy.gov/e/jusa-usj-chronology.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528184428/http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/6279 to http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/6279
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100208043545/http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=2155 to http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=2155
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150605093012/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20150605/k10010104641000.html to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20150605/k10010104641000.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226233614/http://www.cnp.ca/resources/g8-and-nuclear.html to http://www.cnp.ca/resources/g8-and-nuclear.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120519034501/http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/15/putin_s_g8_snub_could_keep_the_us_and_russia_talking to http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/15/putin_s_g8_snub_could_keep_the_us_and_russia_talking
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150421042201/http://en.g8russia.ru/ to http://en.g8russia.ru/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)