Talk:G8/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  US President 

message: See http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/g7_g8/intro/
This link is redundant.--Lucy-marie 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU and G8 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Democracy and China 

message: 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 With countries like Iran, India, Brazil and China excluded, the G8 no longer represents the main economic powers of today's world, as it did when it was created.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)
replies: text: 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 With the People's Republic of China and India excluded, the G8 no longer represents the concentration of economic power it did when it was created.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)
thread_title:  Snapshot of history 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Morecambe 2013 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I have added comment about Spain in the criticism section. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  EU? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. — Kelw (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Economic power 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Criticism and demonstrations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Economic Measurements- PPP vs. nominal GDP 

message: 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 Hackney303 13:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Prime Minister 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mnemonics 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is not a chatroom. One Night In Hackney303 05:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China 

message: 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 Hackney303 07:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes reverted

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expanding on the G8 Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Presidency 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: The G7 doesn´t comprise the 7 largest economies

message: 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)
thread_title: G7, G8?

message: 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)
thread_title:  G8/G7 

message: Per User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 3#G8 template and Talk:G8/Archive 1#EU inclusion the EU stay in the infobox. Any comments of "I don't agree" or "consensus can change" are irrelevant , the inclusion is backed up by referenced sources, so please produce sources to support your position. One Night In Hackney303 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The amended template is not in any way ambiguous, neither is the current version of this article (which is what was agreed to previously) with the EU being in a seperate part of the infobox with "Also represented" above  it. The source you have provided explicity states the EU are represented, yet it does not mention these other organisations you refer to. One Night In Hackney303 16:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)

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

text: Please see what I said right at the top, and what was said on your talk page - User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 3#G8 template. One Night In Hackney303 12:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In particular, here's the exact quote with emphasis added - This is obviously a controversial topic and previous discourse was led by one side who did the research, provided relaible sources showing the current version was the appropriate course of action and the other side just argued and said they did not want it there, but provided no reliable sources to support there argument. You're just repeating last time, and it's a pointless exercise in timewasting. One Night In Hackney303 12:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  only half have nuclear weapons, not "almost all" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  G8 attacks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  G8 and Russia 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Such as? --89.97.35.70 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The term is Wirtschaftgipfel. --Tenmei (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Translation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Russia is a democracy. 210.121.157.138 (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't China replace Italy in the list?  

message: This seemed like it might be a grey area ....  The following was copied from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)#G8:
: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)
thread_title: WP:MOS (flags)

message: 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 :) 
* "feldman1" :
** Feldman, Adam.  "What's Wrong With The G-8," Forbes (New York). July 7, 2008.
** [see above]
DumZiBoT (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: 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)
replies: text: Gracias. --Tenmei (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pres. Sarkozsy's speech in French, English and Spanish is available here. --Tenmei (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  new french position

message: 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)
thread_title: Canada's economy is a lot more powerful than Spain's

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A G-2 would be enough 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spain controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  canada's nominal gdp is 99.6 % as big as Spain's nominal gdp but 

message: 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)
thread_title:  canada nominal gdp 1.432 trillion spain nominal gdp 1.429 trillion

message: 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)
thread_title:  G14: Egypt, UAE or Saudi Arabia 

message: 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)
replies: text: Go with your anti-Russian rhetoric somewhere else, Wikipedia is not for propaganda but for facts. --Atitarev (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  why are some people still calling it G8 ?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  G9 sentence in Structure and Activities 

message: 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)
thread_title: canada gives more to the un spain had a larger gdp than canada in 2003

message: "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)
thread_title:  July 7th Bombings  

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  G8 member facts 

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

message: 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 —Template:G8?  At present, this is a redirect to Template:Db-g8, one of the Speedy deletion templates
:* new template would be similar to —Template:Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
:* this would mean removing  —Template:G8 nations?
:* this would mean removing  —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  —Template:Current G8 Leaders?
:* this would mean removing  —Template:G8-Foreign?
:* this would mean removing  —Template:G8-Finance?
:* this would mean removing  —Template:G8-Defense?
:* this would mean removing  —Template:G8-Justice?
:* this would mean removing  —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
:
*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?
What is the best next step for this article? for similar articles? --Tenmei (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Navbox consensus

message: 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)
thread_title: Official website

message: 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)
thread_title: Flags in table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Decline 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Asian economies 

message: 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)
thread_title: 1974

message: 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)
thread_title:  bi partisanism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lock the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cite note 10 is broken 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's not a right place to discuss editors. Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Russia is suspended and is risking EXPULSION 

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

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why was Russia removed? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:   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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[G7]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified