Jump to content

Talk:2010 G20 Toronto summit/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Editors wanted

Hello. I've been working on this article since it was created and eventually managed to build up some of the key sections this article should have. I am hoping for any editors to research and write about anything else relevant to the Toronto summit. Please make sure they are similar in structure to the other G-20 summit articles. Thanks. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You've done a very nice job with the article so far. What else needs to be added? Gary King (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! As of now I guess the focus is to pay close attention to the protests that will be going on and report them here as they occur. Other than that, I'm not sure what else can be added but if you find anything new worth mentioning in the article, by all means please add it! Eelam StyleZ (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, I hope this article can reach a "Good Article" status. Gary King, you seem to be a pro at making Good Articles! Eelam StyleZ (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the article is definitely in good shape right now—it's already GA-worthy (after the event passes, anyway, since there's definitely going to be more information available over the next few days). I would even go as far to say that you should aim for a featured article. The fact that you're adding information to the article as soon as it is made available, and then tweaking the article bit by bit, should make it easier to make this into an FA since everything you need will be in the article already—you'll just need to smooth out the edges. (P.S. I'm from Toronto.) Gary King (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I promoted the article to B-status. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice! Eelam StyleZ (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Images and summit agenda

Anyone who has eye-catching photos (leaders gathering, inside the summit meeting, protests etc.) they may have taken during the G-20 summit, please upload it. An image (or two) per section is fine but would make the article look more cleaner if the amount of images in each section not protrude into the section below it. Also it would be great if someone expanded the newly added "Agenda" article, information about the topics of discussion during the summit, what different leaders said etc. That section could even be retitled as "The summit" later on. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Fake Lake

What's the "Fake Lake" I think it has something to do with the counter-constitutional suspension of parliment, the unwarranted prorogation, Harper's 3rd or 4th, the last one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.186.51 (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it has anything to do with that. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The Fake Lake is an installation set up for media that's meant to mimic the feel of a deck in Muskoka. PKT(alk) 11:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it's inside the Toronto Convention Centre. So it's a "fake lake" because it's an indoor pool set up to resemble a lake — though of all the alternative names I've heard for it, my own personal favourite is still "Lake Walk-Two-Minutes-to-See-a-Real-Lake". Bearcat (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Australia

Stupid question, but why is the Australian Deputy PM attending and not the PM? Is it to do with negotiations on forming a new cabinet? 216.164.33.62 (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Kevin Rudd has resigned as of June 24 and a new Prime Minister will take his spot later on. In the meantime, Australia is headed by its deputy PM, thus he'll be representing Australia at the G-20 summit. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Not quite; there was a leadership challenge by the then deputy PM Julia Gillard. Rudd resigned, Gillard became PM and Swan became the new deputy PM. Given the sudden change in leadership, the incubent government party probably didn't want to send the new PM to the G-20 meeting, not having faced the music at home yet.--Forward Unto Dawn 14:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Attendance

What are the sources on the attendance? Becasue CNN just affirmed Lula is not attending adn this says he is. Looks like someone just added ALL heads of state.Lihaas (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read the intro paragraph for Attendance you'll see sources were given. Based on those, as well as news on other leaders later on, I added the delegates. Brazilian president cancelling his trip was short notice. Necessary changes are made now. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thats fair, but at any rate the addition of Lula was not true (but i see its now corrected)
There were some additional reverts [1] which were unexplained in the summary so I restored them.Lihaas (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually I think you've restored explained reverts. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Im not sure i understand. the point was to restore unexplained link unless they are explained.Lihaas (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

G20 participants

A. As you may recall, the Prime Minister of Japan died shortly before the 6th G7 summit in Venice. At this point, the official Canadian website identifies anticipated participants; therefore, WP:V does allow posting who is anticipated to attend -- as I have done for the "core" participants. Tomorrow, when newspapers confirm attendance, I will move the citations from their current position to a position at the end of each line which will then encompass the named leaders. By that time, citation support will be available to verify who is representing Australia and Brazil, for example.

B. As you may not know, there has been a multi-year, slow-motion edit war abut EU particpation in the G8. IMO, WP:V encourages verification by citation rather than logic or perceived "common sense." In that context, the Canadian "official" website identified the EU here as "core" participants in the G8 meetings in Muskoka. Similarly, the "official" G20 website encompasses the EU here. For redundant clarity, this is made explicit -- "The G-20 consists of 19 countries and the European Union."

C. For this reason -- and consistent with WP:V, I moved the EU into the "core" group rather than as part of the unverified (but plausible) "regional organization" sub-category.

Does this explanation help in clarifying the several edits made in this section? --Tenmei (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with what you've outlined on my talk page, and above. But that's not what I was talking about. Of course they are core G-20 members, but that is a concern for the G-20 major economies page which would describe the G-20 and it's members. The 2010 G-20 Toronto summit page rather should only outline participants of the G-20. The focus of the "Attendence" section is not to describe the structure of members of the G-20, it should only talk about who will represent each country and their relationship to the actual summit. Plus with regards to manual of style and article size, please don't split sections for leader attendence--this can be grouped under one heading. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Eelam StyleZ -- yes? IMO, WP:V supports format of "attendance" section = "core" participants and others as well?
Does this deserve further explanation or discussion?
There is no disagreement with "... who will represent each country and their relationship to the actual summit."
However, please restate this sentence. I don't understand it, but I am happy to comply: "please don't split sections for leader attendence--this can be grouped under one heading." --Tenmei (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I propose adding one sentence after "Leaders in Toronto" heading: "The G-20 consists of 19 countries and the European Union; and others are also invited to this summit.<:ref name="g20-members">G-20 members</ref>
I also proposed adding inline citations after the following, e.g.,
  • World Bank<:ref name="g20-members">
  • International Monetary Fund<:ref name="g20-members">
  • Financial Stability Board<:ref name="g20-members">
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development<:ref name="g20-members">
  • International Labour Organization (ILO)<:ref name="g20-members">
When more specific information becomes available tomorrow, these citations can be moved to to the end of the line in order to capture the name of the person who is leading the delegation. Does this seem like a reasonable strategy? --Tenmei (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've made a few changes. I hope it is to your liking. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Please reconsider the alphabetical placement of the EU in what seems like a logical order.

Instead, I would argue that we avoid problems down the road by mirroring the official Canadian government website. In other words, re-positioning the EU particpants after the US should not matter.

However, my best guess is that this is one of those trivial points which makes a non-trivial difference. Nothing needs to be decided today, of course.

We can set this aside for now; but we will need to re-visit this after the summit ends. --Tenmei (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still wondering what the benefits would be by mirroring the Canadian G-20 site. It only speaks about the G-20 members, not the G-20 attendees which is what we should be more concerned about. For example, they have a profile of Brazil's president, but it turns out that he's not attending and being replaced by the Finance Minister. Also, what's wrong with the alphabetical placement of the EU? If you see the London and Pittsburgh summit pages, they don't even include EU members with the country leader list and put them in a separate section called "regional representation," just like how the Toronto summit page was previously. Again, I think the structure of the G-20 members is trivial when it comes to the topic of the Toronto summit. It can be mentioned in someway, but that shouldn't be the focus of the attention. What really matters is who attends and who doesn't. I agree on waiting until tommorow, or after the end of the summit for better organization of the section. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, as a reply to restating the sentence you didn't understand, I meant the Attendance section is enough to include information about G-20 members and attendees. A new "Leaders in Toronto" section is unnecessary--just sounds like the Attendance section being introduced all over again. The current outline and structure of the article is commendable and clean, unless a new topic emerges (and should emerge), such as "Impact" or "Legacy", etc. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
A. The University of Toronto G20 webpage here was updated today
B. The official Canadian government web page here was last modified on 9 June.
C. Except for those instances in which we know the G20 Research Group page is likely to beinaccurate, I propose updating our inline citations to conform with the most current information available consistent with WP:V/WP:RS.
When better data becomes available, our draft article will change further. Other than these evolving inline citation updates, I plan to set aside anything to do with format in the participation sections. --Tenmei (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not quite satisfied with using this page as a source for G-20 attendence. Please note that page (and the U of T Research Group site) outlines the members of the G-20, not the attendees of the G-20 Toronto summit (theres quite a difference in both, I'm sure you agree). In that case, even though the government site is verifiable, it shouldn't be interpreted wrong. News reports about the summit's aftermath, which would eventually come after the summit ends, should be used in citing leaders' attendance. In the meantime, I agree we can't just simply assume remaining leaders, whose attendance information isn't yet available, will come to the summit. Thus, I guess adding the whole list of leaders ahead of time was premature in the first place. That was just a thought; the current citations can be kept for the time being. Also, thanks for agreeing with the section format. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought ...? Perhaps it might be useful assume a "Rideau Hall point-of-view" ...? Consider this: The Governor-General's schedule planners use the best available information in preparing an advance list of those expected to attend an event, but there are likely to be changes. For example, those who are in charge of security remain flexible as they track the evolving data set of potential attendees.

In a sense, our Wikipedia article inevitably mirrors a congruent pattern. Some of yesterday's inline citations will prove accurate and adequate for the final draft, and some will not. When we look back at this article from the perspective of 2012, we will be able to see that our approach has captured a range of data-points across the cohort of international leaders and delegations. Ideally, there might be as many as 20 different verification composites. This approach ensures a context for a nuanced data set as the summit is re-evaluated in light of its long-term consequences.

In other words, attendance/participation of the "players" in the Toronto summit is not a captured "snapshot" of the pitch during a single World Cup soccer match.

Does this begin to describe a reasonable strategy composed of sequential tactics as applied in this one section of our article? --Tenmei (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

per WP:EL "3.Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Sectioning within "EL's" are sign enough of too many links. I haven't removed any after the addition, but i put the tag till we can sort out what to keep and not.Lihaas (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I added those links--thought they would be pretty useful. If it helps, I'll remove the most unimportant links (probably the Globe and Mail link because it might even become inactive a while after the summits) and remove the subheadings. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Your edits are good, but i feel it can be shortened some more. Link dont need to be there for the sake of it. Security, press, and theones below can be good. maybe they're good while the summit is on, but they can go ultimately in a week or so. The first 2 can suffice?Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Image licensing

As per my talk page, there's apparently a copyright problem with the File:450 g20 map.jpg (G-20 security zone map) on the article. I'm terrible with clearing up copyright problems, so if anyone could kindly clear that problem up (if it can be) that would be great. Otherwise, that image will be deleted. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well either it is somethign that cant be replicated and needs to serve the purpose (ie- the main logo) or you can recreate one yourself and/or make this in a crappier resolution (so-to-say)
Otherwise the challenger seems right if its straight off the ctv website. (although a govt source doesnt have much copyright grounds, its all should be in the public domain, dunno why wikipedia thinks a government has any IP) Lihaas (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Explaining edit

To explain my latest edit:

  1. [2] is removed per WP:Overlink
  2. [3] was unexplained
  3. [4] says the section includes more than the subject header so I added the changes subject header to the other info. Think the bombing was prominent (and long enough with cites on this page) to warrant its own subsection
  4. [5] per the first removal the link is "already on page" and thus WP:Overlink
  5. [6] just listed only 1 flag in instead of relisting the same, which is still WP:FLAGCRUFT btw
  6. [7] the non-link part was not discussed, and the links part doesnt quite have consensus yet (ive not removed the link as the discussion is ongoing, but i re-added the tag till we get consensus on it. Please dont remove until we agree)Lihaas (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Please stop reverting explained edits--right now the focus is to add more to the 'Protests' section as it is a rapidly developing story. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, concensus on what? What dispute is there regarding external links? Eelam StyleZ (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Video coverage

Can we get some external links in the article? --194.219.131.81 (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read this first. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

June 26-27 protests

Whoever is working on the current protest news keep up the good work! (I'd be working on it too but caught up with some other work.) A few suggestions, a photo of one of the burning cruisers or the Black Bloc members running around? Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim that anarchists throw feces is a myth just like protestors spitting on soldiers coming back from vietnam. Neither are true but are reported to make protestors look bad. Corporate media should not be considered an objective point of view or a reliable source at all when dealing with reports of people who threaten corporate media's existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.190.52 (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, because throwing bricks through store windows and lighting cruisers on fire doesn't make you "look bad". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.36.25 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Then who might you suggest we trust when it comes to reporting the news? Eelam StyleZ (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
A variety of sources, most especially local media in Toronto. A report from France is not reliable for protests in Toronto, and leads to inaccuracies such as making it seem like the peacful protesters turned violent, not the 150 odd dickheads. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. I tried to stick to Canadian/Toronto sources as much as possible (such as CP24 and CTV) when it came to summit news. At the moment I feel the Toronto Star is the worst at reporting formal news. All they have going is a blog, which is pretty much not good to use as reference. Only a few articles with a little information about yesterday exist. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll buy the papers when I go out today. No doubt every one has their own take on the story. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to split the protest section into its own article. Any objections? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but the question is, what would remain of the Protests section in this article? Eelam StyleZ (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking should be done as we've got an excellent collection of photos on Wikimedia Commons to showcase, thanks to Skeezix, and this section just seems to get bigger. At the sametime, it probably won't hurt to wait until the protests end. By then, we could probably do a copy and paste of the section to the new article and turn the current protest section into a summary of events. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd assume the section would be summarized here, and we would develop it in the dedicated article. I'd also like to do this to protest sections at former G-20 and similar proceedings. On a side note, I'd like to invite editors interested in this matter to the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe the London summit already has its own protest article. The one for Toronto can be done in the same vein. On a side note, the Pittsburgh summit protests don't look like it needs splitting, unless it can be expanded. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I happen to be thinking the same thing. It appears like the events, media coverage (as well as the damage inflicted) is worthy of making that section it's own article. mimithebrain (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, maybe some more ideas from other editors can come in before making a final decision. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Compare 27th G8 summit

A number of things worked out right. This not-unimportant success needs to be underscored. Although the protestors/demonstrations aspect of this article is still a little rough, the current version is better balanced than 27th G8 summit, which perhaps offers a useful comparison ...? --Tenmei (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me but I'm not sure what the comparison is trying to explain. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The Genoa summit article focuses almost exclusively on the protests and demonstrations. The editors who invested in developing that article did not appear to have been interested in achieving any kind of balance. InN contrast, those who worked on the article about the Toronto summit article did appear to strive towards a different goal. All I intended to say was that this perceived difference deserves to be acknowledged and encouraged. --Tenmei (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Outcome / Agenda / Impact / Response (needs to be expanded!!!)

In addition to the ongoing Protests, the summit's Agenda and its Outcome should be worked on. Agenda should mention what ideas or issues each leader brought to the summit initially, as well as what events were scheduled by Harper and leaders to take place during the summit, and the Outcome should basically be what happened/what was said inside the summit meeting and it's aftermath. I've started writing a bit and probably continue to add more once more information flows in. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Protestors"

The section about what's happening currently at the G20.... it says that some of the protesters did not keep their "peaceful protest" promise, but most of them were NOT protesters. Most of them were not even from Toronto. Notice they lack of signs, chants, or any other form of comminication. LOctopus (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, we are working on trying to differentiate the peaceful protests from the BS caused by the 100-odd black bloc dumbshits (no offense). But then again some protests, like todays, that were initially peaceful became loud and caused unrest by the same group. According to news sources they all appear to be protesters. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Whenever there is a peaceful protest anywhere in the world, the police claims that there are "black bloc" anarchists who must be stopped, and that gives them the rationale to arrest everybody, standing or sitting. Some analysts have speculated that the black bloc ruse is a great way for peaceful protesters to be rounded up in public, leaving people wondering if the so-called "black bloc" even exist in the first place, and who they are actually working for. Suggest you do a search on this; It's a standard template for news stories about protests and it's been carted out as an excuse to arrest people for decades. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's done...

The summit is over, the leaders are gone/going home, police take off gas masks, protests are calming down, and it's raining...

Just a friendly reminder, along with some further developments and final touches to the Protests section, we must, must, must work on and build the Agenda and Outcome sections--the core sections of this article pertaining to the objective of the summit. Also, the article will be glorified if we could get a snapshop of all the leaders during the summit photo opportunity uploaded. With all those done, the article is essentially complete. Further tasks can be considered, such as a suggested split of the Protests section. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Family photo is uploaded and posted, but the caption still needs to be developed.

It is my guess that there will be more than one version -- perhaps at the whitehouse.gov? I would expect for this particular image to be deleted in favor of a better, clearer one? --Tenmei (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes the best one should be at the White House website. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation format

Tenmei - I just noticed that on 2010 G-20 Toronto summit, you've been diligently adding references (which is good) but doing so without using the proper reference templates and removing the template format from pre-existing refs (which is bad). Please don't remove the template from references that already use it and, when adding new references, use one of the templates available here. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Miesianiacal -- Thank you for your constructive comments. I am copying this thread to #Citation format. This will open up the thread for comments from others who may have other useful ideas to share. Maybe this can become a good reference thread for similar questions which may well arise in future?
Am I wrong in having noticed that these citation templates are standard in some, but not all articles?
  • Somehow, I had the impression that the format was optional, no?
  • Somewhere, I thought I read that decision-making about inline citation formats is informed by whatever happens to be more common in any specific article?
In any case, the citations you mention were mine -- added by me last week. My plan then, as now, was to "grow" the citations for each participant over the course of the weekend. See above at #Core participants.
These "growing" citations reflected
  • (a) anticipated participation at the beginning of June, as captured in the official Canadian government summit website;
  • (b) the expected participants listed at the University of Toronto G20 Centre website, or in other words, the projected makeup of each delegation as of June 24; and
  • (c) newspaper citations which actually verify that each leader did actually arrive and take part in the summit activities.
In the next few weeks, these 3-part citations can be tweaked in order to provide a richly-sourced list of those who were present. If a consensus of those contributing to this article prefer the templates, then I will join in the tedious work of modifying each inline citation.
In other words, nothing has been lost nor has academic credibility been sacrificed by my editing.
If this were a different kind of article, your comments would be timely and important as part of a process of building consensus among a team of editors. My "work-in-progress editing" -- especially when you consider my edits in the context of the talk page discussion -- was intended to move towards developing consensus, not only in the article about this specific summit, but also in the series which precedes and follows it. Your words shows me that I've inadvertently caused the wrong impression. Sorry to have caused alarm.
Does this help explain?
In the narrow terms of your first-blush opinion, I would have thought that it does matter that these works-in-progress citations were my own -- see here (citations 57 through 78)? They were modified by an editor who changed only the citations in the core participants section, while ignoring other citations which are less conventionally formatted -- as for example, in the more sketchy protest-related citations.
In this article, context explains a little of this; but I do welcome your feedback because it alerts me to the fact that I could have/should have done this differently.
It becomes something of a "win-win" situation if we figure out how to incorporate your good ideas as part of a process which will repeat itself in other international conference articles. --Tenmei (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Work-in-progress notice?

Perhaps some of the questions raised in this thread could have been averted if I had posted an "under construction" notice in the section? Something like the following?--Tenmei (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC) {:{Expand|section|Date=June 2010}}Please note work-in-progress editing -- see also #G20 participants

You're really gonna put the "Please note work-in-progress editing -- see also #G20 participants" on the actual article? Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Fankly, I imagine that a notice becomes a kind of clutter; but this tentative proposal is something other than nothing at all. A. If we assume that I could/should have done something differently so that this thread would not have begun, then what? If we assume that #G20 participants-above could/should have been avoided, then what? B. I want to be part of a process which discovers better strategy. My previous experience led me to guess that work on the core participants list would be non-controversial, but in the past few days, it became clear that this informed guess was simply wrong. C. The forward-looking problem-set becomes something to do with figuring out how to do better when a similar editing process is repeated in at APEC Japan 2010 and 2010 G-20 Seoul summit in November? Does this clarify my underlying objectives? --Tenmei (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Well specifically writing out such a notice on an article is pretty inappropriate. Infact there's a tag template called "underconstruction" that you could keep at the top of the page if it really does need to be kept. Otherwise, I don't think a tag is necessary at the moment. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't clear enough. I construe this thread to focus solely on June 24th through June 27th? --Tenmei (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Article splitting

Article looks like its nearly overflowing with info. It was previously suggested that the protests section could probably be split from this article. I'm sort of thinking that maybe the preparations section and probably the controversies sections may also need to be split as they have a lot of stuff. Basically creating new articles forming a series:

(In order of priority--from my perspective)

I'm currently considering these splits can help reduce this article a bit as it seems to be getting too large. Right now, the article basically looks like its focusing on what was done to host the summit, instead of what was done at the summit--the latter is what is most important and should be the main focus of this article. Once split, a short and sweet summary of those respective sections can remain in this article. Anyone support or oppose any of these moves? Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like your plan was endorsed above. --Tenmei (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes but as that section became cluttered I thought we could come to a more clear consensus here. I feel we need more input on this from other editors. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
So far 3 editors (including in the concensus in one of the sections above) support the splitting of the Protests section. As for the preparations and controversies section we'll wait and see as those don't necessarily need to be split away. Protests section requires some more cleaning so once that's done it will be split. Anyone opposing this move can still do so, I'll keep an eye on this section before I start the splitting. εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I support the split, as the protests, preparations, and controversies detract from the topic itself. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I support the split only if someone can wrote an appropriate summary in their place. Usually when information is split from an article, the source article ends up being a lot worse since no one gets around to writing a decent summary. Gary King (talk · scripts) 16:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I (or anyone else who wishes to do so) will definetly get a decent summary of each section right after each split. εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The summary section has been split and I did what I could to make a decent summary for the Protests section -- although I think it looks kind of crap. :P Hopefully someone can get that straightened out. εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I support this split because there's a lot of redundant information at the G8 page and it isn't appropriate to have both articles coving security. I propose that these articles cover both summits, especially because so many protesters and news articles are covering both. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 21:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's quite true. I found it hard to not mention the G8 in some parts of this article when adding info. Also, I agree this article speaks a lot about what was done to hold the summit rather than what was done/happened at the summit. The preparations and controversies section is still with this article. Should those two be moved as well? εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Tear gas has been used before in Toronto

It's been widely reported that it has never been used, when in fact it has during an anti-poverty protest in 2000. Unfortunately I can't find a source because it's so trivial, but the CBC mentioned it in their coverage on the National yesterday around 6pm EST. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, but then the question would be: who do we believe? For now we may have to settle it as majority wins--go with what most sources tell us. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
There should be an article about that one too. What I got here in the OCAP was the link to an article More arrests over Queen's Park anti-poverty riot. "Some people at the rally blamed police for over-reacting. But others accused a small number of trouble-makers of intentionally starting a riot — showing up with gas masks and helmets, pushing their way past a barricade, and then attacking Queen's Park security."205.189.194.208 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This is indirectly on-topic: Pre-summit planning at Toronto hospitals anticipated tear gas and other eye-irritant injuries. This strongly implies that the projected use of tear gas was not considered unexpected or novel or "never been used" in Canada.
Perhaps this helps establish a better context? --Tenmei (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Reaction

Just seems to be about Iran. Can we all agree that Iran is not the most human rights respecting nation, and it is sort of funny they are attacking Canada like that? There is a history there of course, with Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian Photojournalist who was killed in Iran and the continuing spat between the two on the world stage, Canada has numerous times introduced UN reoslutions condemning Iran for human right violations. Should it probably be mentioned that there is more reason to Iran's condemnations then concern for the protesters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.196.201 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be a newly added section. That along with other key sections that deal with the objectives of the summit will be cleaned out today. On a side note, isn't it funny how Canada (during G8) condemned Iran and now Iran condemns Canada? εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki, other wiki

Nothing on Wikinews save hopeful search results here. Nothing in Libertapedia, Conservapedia has an article on Group of Twenty. As for Anarchopedia, all they have are the 1981 Toronto bathhouse raids and apparantly, for some reason, Avril Lavigne (both seem to be forks though)70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Was this some sort of "Dump on Toronto" strategy?

Harpers punishing Toronto for not voting Tory? McGuinty treating Toronto citizens with similar contempt? Montrealers trashing our city? Huh?205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha - Harper punishing T.O. for not voting the tories is a good one. Actually I think Harper is trying to glorify his hometown Toronto by bringing summits here (which is good), but some better planning should have been done, the whole thing appeared to be rushed. εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
There should be citations for that, because that seems like an editorial comment. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A caller or two mentioned it in CBC's cross-country check-up. Harper seems to identify more with the West: Firewalls around Alberta and all that--(Alberta Agenda).205.189.194.208 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's a few links:

Police targeted Quebecers, say protest organizers ‘For us it’s not violence,’ spokesperson says of G20 vandalism. Published On Mon Jun 28.

“For us it’s not violence,” said Mathieu Francoeur, a spokesperson for the Anti-Capitalist Convergence, a group of Montreal social activists and anarchists that organized buses for about 450 to Toronto. “It’s a means of expression and doesn’t compare to the economic and state violence we’re subjected to.”

The “smashing that happened in Toronto,” he explained, was against symbols of capitalism.

Quebec’s possible outsized role in the protests stems from a well-organized anti-authoritarian movement here.

Anti-war demonstrations tend to be much larger in Montreal than other Canadian cities, as are labour protests, in part because far more Quebecers belong to unions than elsewhere in the country.

Here's a letter to the editor in today's NOW. Harper, meet the Black Bloc

For a fleeting moment this week I entertained the notion that the G20 summit might in some way be a deliberate thumbing of the nose at Toronto by Harper (NOW, June 24-30).

It now seems to me that the choice of venue may very well have been informed by Harper’s attitude toward this stronghold of pluralistic, left-wing debauchery.

At a federal level, Toronto is a strategic write-off for Harper. And herein lies the connection between Harper and the Black Bloc. Neither party calls Toronto home, either politically or physically, and so neither has anything to lose by inviting as charged an event as the G20 or by carrying out the knee-jerk vandalism of our streets.

I submit that Stephen Harper and the Black Bloc equally share the blame for this weekend’s street violence.

206.130.174.42 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

5 meter security rule didn't exist!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/29/g20-chief-fence571.html

Toronto's chief of police Bill Blair announced Tuesday that there never really was a 5 meter rule. I am far too angry about this to update the article in a non-biased way :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setitup (talk • contribs) 04:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The zone did exist, but from what I understand it was inside of the fence. The media was what reported it incorrectly and neither the police chief or government saw fit to correct the misunderstanding for the duration of the conference. Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't that guy who was arrested for being within 5 metres of the fence on the outside? 205.189.194.208 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because the police also believed that was the law that had been established. They weren't aware of the difference until it was announced after the conference anymore than the general public was, from what I understand. Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:02,
Here's one link. New Law Gives Authorities Power To Arrest Those Who Refuse To ID Themselves Around G20 Security Zone. 2010/06/25 CityNews.ca Staff. "One man was arrested Thursday under the new law. He’s due in court July 28th."

So let me get this straight: Bill Blair gets Dalton to pass a new law, and when Dalton passes it, Blair--the leader of this integrated force--doesn't tell the other cops.Is there anything else that he’s illegitimately holding back? (I'm glad that I've given two police vehicles the finger already!!)

As for the arrested guy in regards to the fence, I'm pretty sure that he was outside.206.130.174.42 (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
In the interest of disclosure, I'm the same guy (205.189.194.208) who posted what is now the 4th last post here: different IP now.206.130.174.42 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't know if there is anything else. As I said before, this is just based on my understanding of the articles I have read and the conjecture I have heard. You would have to ask him yourself if you wanted to find that out I suppose. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
(Again, same me, different IP). Yeah, and Bill Blair (your link leading to the Toronto Police website) has been caught in a lie or two. I'll likely be checking videos of a "Veitch" where he was arrested or the like for just that.205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Table format

The core participants of an international summits need to be identified; and a table format presents that information in summary fashion. The table scans more easily and more efficiently than prose or a list. Format does convey meaning.

The distinction between members and non-members is perhaps best presented by distinguishing a core table. I'm persuaded that one table is needed. In the same way that the infobox is a recurrent element in related articles, I would envisage the core participants table as a repeated element in all G20 summit articles. I haven't formed a view about whether one or more additional tables are good or preferable.

My work with others in developing this article causes me to re-think the value of tables in contexts of other international summits. I'm persuaded that it is probably a good idea to introduce core participant tables in articles about the G8 summits, the G-15 summits, etc.

Perhaps further discussion isn't necessary; but if so, this becomes a first step. --Tenmei (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes tables are an excellent idea, infact I was thinking about creating it myself. I also agree table formatting conveys a lot of meaning. However, it would be alot easier on the eyes if we could keep all participants in a combined chart. In your recent edit, the charts were broken up into separate ones with different sizes, wouldn't it make a lot more sense if they were anchored to one another to make one whole chart of attendees? The differentiation between each group (core members, invited nations, organizations) is indicated by the column spanning titles given above each group. This combined template can definetly be used for all summit pages as it groups all participants in one chart. Once again, the purpose of the Attendance section is not necessarily about the structure of G-20 membership, but rather a list of participants. Of course, we really must differentiate between the main members and the invitees, which is why I gave them their headings on the chart. Also, it is an attempt to reduce the number of unnecessary subheadings that were previously under the "Attendance" section. Overall, cleanliness and content presentation were the two purposes for keeping the three charts together. εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I take your point; but this is still apples and oranges.
Please compare tables at 2010 G-20 Seoul summit and 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit. Our minor misunderstanding is not quite a disagreement, but it does illuminate a gap. A key sentence in the diff above is this: Once again, the purpose of the Attendance section is not necessarily about the structure of G-20 membership, but rather a list of participants. This small question puts a spotlight on a number of useful issues which arise from unaddressed presumptions. Three aspects of this issue are significant:
  • A. Please re-consider in light of the format presented at G-20 major economies. In that article, the core members are presented in a data-rich table which is changed with irregular frequency. Please consider the serial tables on summit articles as corollaries of the table on this page. In the context of G-20 major economies, the peripheral contributors in G-20 discussions are mentioned in prose; and perhaps the summit articles might be improved by modeling what seems to work well in this overview article.
  • B. At the same time, please re-consider in a context which takes into account all past and future G-20 meetings, G-15 meetings, G-8 meetings, etc. For example, if you move back and forth between the Toronto and Seoul tables, the way visual scanning works will cause small changes in Australia and Brazil to seem emphasized. They "jump out" to make it easier for the changes to be grasped at a glance.
  • C. Also, please take a look at the fair use justification for uploading the Canadian Integrated Security Unit logo. The repeated visual organization pattern of a members-only table is not only a pedagogical device. The tables (plural) become a kind of mnenomic device which "illustrate the event's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey."
Could there be an artificial perceptual barrier in the arbitrary word choice of "attendance" as a heading? We arrive at this constructive impasse because of excellent question posed here and only partially addressed in your response here.
In a sense, this thread moves towards a different order of editing. The goal becomes one of coordinating style and format and substance across a range of articles so that the related group becomes a mutually-reinforcing whole. Do you begin to see what I mean? --Tenmei (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. From point C I get the feeling that the concern about the tables is about having column headings for each group of entities that attended the summit. I am going to make an edit to the chart and please report back if that could be more acceptable. εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Aha .... Yes. Good. Thanks.
Thank you for considering the points-of-view I tried to explain above. For redundant clarity, please let me emphasize that there was nothing "wrong" with the previous version of the table. Please let me reiterate that the arguments you present above are not "wrong." Nor is the newest version necessarily best. Despite the rationale I offered in support of modifications you have made, someone else may visualize things a little bit differently. May I propose that we re-visit this table-format in late-November or early-December 2010, during or after the Seoul summit? Maybe there are a few "tweaks" in the format which are not apparent to us today?
Can you think of any reason why, in the coming months, I should not take it on myself to replicate your work across a range of other summit articles? G-15 summits? G8 summits? --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome! Glad it's to your liking. Of course this table can be tweaked later on to better support any changes that may occur. Also, no I cannot think of any reason why you can't replicate this chart to other summit articles—a common theme for all summit articles is surely a good thing. εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see congruent formatting in these tables:

This is step in a constructive direction. The format can be tweaked at any point in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

ASEAN in the infobox

Who is seated at this table?

ASEAN has been added to the infobox and to the tables on this page. A credible source verified ASEAN attendance at three summits; and this justifies including both the organization and its representative(s) in our article. ASEAN now appears in the tables at 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit and 2009 G-20 London summit. ASEAN is also incorporated in the table at 2010 G-20 Seoul summit.

However, this doesn't mean that ASEAN actually had a "place at the table." (compare phrase "at the table" used in Sheila Whyte. "The Protesters: Who's who at the summits," CBC News. June 9, 2010; excerpt, " 'At the Table' ... The largest and most powerful group of NGOs is a network of about 60 organizations—or other networks—meeting in Canada under this banner.")

I propose removing ASEAN from the infobox and from the tables.

My guess is that there is a one-to-one correlation between the list of 20+5 here and the seating at the specially constructed "table" featured in the photo at the right. In addition -- if you enlarge and study this photo -- you will see that there appear to be more than 25 seated at this central circle ... and there are others in the room as well.

In the absence of more specific data, it may be reasonable to limit what is added to our small infobox. One possible solution is to remove ASEAN from the infobox unless new information consistent with WP:RS and WP:V confirms that ASEAN is included in this center circle? Of course, ASEAN remains in the article text -- just not in the featured position in the infobox in the top right corner.

This rationale may affect others in attendance at this G-20 summit? at past G-20 summits? at future G-20 summits?

Perhaps we may need to identify another category of attendees?

ASEAN may have been an observer? I would propose tentative "observer" status for ASEAN -- and for any others who have not yet been added. In other words, I would propose establishing "observer" as a default in the absence of other credible data?

This issue is not urgent; but, it is worth pondering. All issues can be revisited in conjunction with 2010 G-20 Seoul summit. --Tenmei (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In a related context, please consider my edits here and here at 2009 G-20 London summit? and here at 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit? --Tenmei (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Any discussion of participants in a G-20 infobox needs to be harmonized with List of G-20 summits#Heads of government; and this edit here appears to be related to the subject of this thread. --Tenmei (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced text with uncertain proper place

I moved some text in the outcome section to better locations. However, I found no proper place for the text below. Feel free to reinsert it if you know where. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

During the midst of the 36th G8 summit in Huntsville, Ontario, as well as the G-20 Toronto summit, a few overseas reporters began to comment on Canada and the summits. A reporter of the British Broadcasting Corporation wrote about Canada's economy, saying "Canada has answers for even the toughest puzzles and they are keen to share their strategies with the rest of the world. Why in this economy, we all want to be Canadian."
This should actually belong in the Outcome section. Also, further sections do not need to be created. Any other information should be (and can be) fitted within the existing sections. The focus is to develop and clean up the outcome section, and of course much of the current info in that section is not sufficient or clean. Till a proper revamp is done to that section, no need to rearrange the article. εεℓαм sтуℓεz (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Update tag posted - July 2010

I've posted the update tag for the Outcome section, as it has not been cleaned up nor does it have the latest information on what was decided upon during the G-20 summit by the leaders. Would be great if someone could get that covered (sources can be found from the US White House website or the Government of Canada G-20 website listed under External links in the article). More sources from Google News under the appropriate search term can be found if necessary. EelamStyleZ Discuss 20:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 G20 Toronto summit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to place this article on hold to allow time for the below issues to be addressed. cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
No responses in 2 weeks...are contributors still working on this, or should the review be closed to allow for a possible later renomination? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
If there's still work to be done, then this will have to be failed since there's been no progress in a couple weeks. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?
Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?

Accuracy and verifiability

Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?
Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?
Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?

Broad

Neutrality

Stability


Images

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:2010 G20 Toronto summit/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I don't think there are any problems with this article that would make it deserve a fail during a GAN. I'm hoping someone could reassess this article and see if there are still any problems with this article that prevent it from becoming a good article. EelamStyleZ (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The initial assessment process focused on aspects of the article which could be improved by further edits. Some work remains to be done.

In addition, I would hope to see comments which identify what is "good" as well as what is "bad".

  • Likely to be the first of the international summit articles to be classed as a good article.
  • Likely to become a kind of yardstick for measuring the evolution of other similar articles — not only G-20 summits, but also the 37 articles about G8 summits, articles about the NATO summits, etc.
In practical terms, the first GA review included a question about the term "family photo". IMO, this issue was resolved; and in other contexts, we may be able to avoid reinventing the wheel.

I would expect this GA assessment process could become a kind of template for expediting the assessment of other summit-related articles like 2010 G-20 Toronto summit preparations and 2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests. --Tenmei (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The article looks as if it deserves GA status. I see no problems with the content or the writing style. Therefore, I agree that it should deserve GA status. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

invited nations list incorrect

Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, and Senegal were NOT invited to participate in the G20 summit. They were invited to participate in the 36th G8 summit (along with Colombia, Haiti, and Jamaica) in Huntsville Ontario. These 7 countries should accordingly be removed from the list UNLESS someone can point to sources here that indicate that official invitations were extended with respect to the G20 summit in Toronto Ontario. All the sources I have seen indicate that ONLY FIVE country invitations were extended with respect to the G20 (to Ethiopia (then chair of NEPAD), Malawi (then chair of the African Union), the Netherlands (world's 16th largest economy), Spain (world's 9th largest economy) and Vietnam (then head of ASEAN)).Bdell555 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See here for the host's statement about who was invited to the G20. Again, only five countries are identified. Looking at the sources that were cited for inclusion of the others, a close reading indicates the sources talked about both the G8 and G20 meetings, and the other countries' participation was noted when the sources were focusing on the G8 meeting.Bdell555 (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A quick review of our article's edit history reveals that these superfluous names were added by a banned sockpuppet on July 13 here. In the newly edited table, there is a cited source which verifies Harper's five invitations. In each case, this has been married with a citation confirming the leader's arrival in Toronto. --Tenmei (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re-inventing the wheel

The process of working on this article was unique.

At the same time, some of the steps in collaborative editing may be similar to other articles about other summits.

It is reasonable to list a few comments about what was learned during work on the 2010 G-20 Toronto summit?

Perhaps this thread can help mitigate lessons learned the hard way? --Tenmei (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs removed for discussion

Any of the following can be restored:

"Agenda" section

Does this paragraph enhance the quality of the article? IMO, it does not. --Tenmei (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

On June 24, Toronto mayor David Miller held a news conference at the International Media Centre, set up at the Exhibition Place, welcoming media from around the world.[1] Leaders of the G8 arrived in Toronto after wrapping up their meeting in Huntsville, Ontario. During the afternoon of June 26, the rest of the G-20 leaders arrived to take part in the G-20 summit. That evening, Stephen Harper formally welcomed the G-20 leaders to the summit and a working dinner was arranged[2] at the Fairmont Royal York Hotel.[3] The following day, June 27, the formal summit meeting began during the morning.

"Attendance" section

Do these paragraphs enhance the quality of the article? --Tenmei (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Toronto Pearson International Airport was the port of entry for delegates attending both the G8 and G-20 summits. French president Nicolas Sarkozy and Chinese president Hu Jintao were the first of the G-20 leaders to arrive in Canada. The arrival of Hu coincided with his state visit to Canada, hosted by Governor General of Canada Michaëlle Jean in Ottawa.[4] Presidents Jacob Zuma of South Africa and Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria arrived on June 24.[5] David Cameron arrived on June 25, following a short visit in Halifax to celebrate the centennial of the Canadian Forces Maritime Command. Remaining leaders with the G8 also arrived on the same day.[6]
After the G8 summit in Huntsville, Ontario ended, Cameron, whose aircraft was grounded due to weather conditions, hitched a ride to Toronto in Marine One with American president Barack Obama.[7] Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva cancelled his trip to stay back and monitor the situation on the recent flooding in northeastern Brazil; and in his place, Guido Mantega, Brazil's finance minister, headed the nation's delegation.[8]
I'm totally confused about why you're deleting these paragraphs from the article and moving them here. I don't see how they impair this article's "quality". The only situation in Wikipedia where quality is questionable is when information doesn't have verifiable sources or written improperly, which isn't the case here. The goal is to keep this article complete with available information. I'm kindly asking you to stop condensing valuable paragraphs in the name of "tweaking" - thanks. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
EelamStyleZ -- If you don't understand an edit, asking questions is a good next step. We can discuss this on a sentence-by-sentence basis, if needed. The following is an arguable good beginning:
A: The undo edit here restored paragraphs in the introduction which, in my judgment, are better positioned in the preparations section. If this needs discussion, fine. If the change in the introduction escaped your attention; and the revert was only a function of an overall undo edit, good. We're moving forward towards something better.
B. The GA1 failed, in part, because you did not complete the "general copy-edit for clarity and flow". I have waited for that projected review to be completed. At this point, I have decided to try to do it myself at the same time as I am re-visiting each of the citations. The paragraph deletions were a matter of judgment; and you may have a different opinion. At this point, the subject has matured to the point that your point of view can be reasonably challenged in this manner.

IMO, the three paragraphs which were moved to the talk page contain details which are too specific. For example, the sequence of arrivals was interesting to me and you. However, this information does not enhance the overall understanding of readers who want to know about the summit as an event. In a journalistic sense, these details are relevant. Are they also necessary in this article? I don't perceive these sentences as a kind of "value added" contribution. As an alternative,

  • Can we consider condensing the material in the paragraphs which were removed?
  • Could the citations be bundled with others which remain?
  • Should the trivia be presented as notes?
These would seem reasonable questions in the context of a GA2 review?

C: The GA1 failed, in part, because I did not complete a review of all the inline citations in every section. The article was still developing at that point; and I was uncertain about how to ensure consistent formatting. As you know, the article has been stable for some time. Some of the embedded hyperlinks are now dead. I have re-visited, corrected, or added inline citations for about half of the article's text. I plan to continue that process as part of the polishing which is still needed. For example,
D: In summary, the question becomes something about where we go from here? What next? I propose we begin with the attendance section? then then the agenda section? We can work together in a "general copy-edit for clarity and flow" or we can work independently in a section-by-section review. --Tenmei (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I see. The reason wasn't clear in your edit summary so it baffled me as to why the article seemed cut down. I see that further copyediting does need to take place. I'll take care of that once I'm more free of other priorities. In the meantime, I'm temporarily delisting the GAN until all issues have been settled. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

Should we subject this article to peer review?Lbertolotti (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ "G-20: Toronto Mayor David Miller welcomes the world's media to the city". Ontario: Prnewswire.com. 2010-06-24. Retrieved 2010-09-02.
  2. ^ "CBC News - Politics - PM greets G20 leaders amid protests". Cbc.ca. 2010-06-27. Retrieved 2010-06-27.
  3. ^ Les Whittington Ottawa Bureau (2010-06-26). "The G20 quandary – keep spending or start trimming deficits". Toronto: thestar.com. Retrieved 2010-06-27.
  4. ^ Zhang Xiang. "Chinese president to visit Canada, attend G20 summit," Xinhua (China). June 17, 2010, retrieved 2011-04-06; Delacourt, Susan. "Harper helps Hu keep critics away," Toronto Star (Canada). June 25, 2010, retrieved 2011-04-06.
  5. ^ "Leaders begin arriving for G8, G20," Toronto Star (Canada). June 24, 2010, retrieved 2011-04-06.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference toronto2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Wardell, Jane. "Britain's Cameron bolsters reputation at summits," Boston Globe (US). June 28, 2010, retrieved 2011-04-06.
  8. ^ Dantas, Iuri. "Lula Will Skip G-20 Summit to Oversee Brazil Flood Relief, Official Says," Bloomberg (US). June 25, 2010; retrieved 2011-04-06.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_G20_Toronto_summit/Archive_1&oldid=1142749786"