Talk:APEC Australia 2007

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

Criticisms[edit]

There should most certainly be a section on criticisms about the event. This is a major event and possibly one of the biggest australian protests of the year. If you remove the section as opposed to simply editing it please some admin out there replace it. The added section is very important and given the magnitude of APEC as one of the biggest political events of the decade it deserves a section criticising it. 60.241.213.129 04:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, but even more importantly I think, this article reads like an advertisement. How about some neutrality and better use of tense? 60.242.154.34 09:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section reads like something straight out of Green Left Weekly, ie: bollocks. 66.95.7.232 02:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh. I agree. --DandanxD 14:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added some criticism from a more centrist view; ie, that it's a massive waste of money and hugely intrusive, in peoples lives and the local economy, for what is essentially just a luxury photo op. Hope that helps :). 203.59.80.62 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed contents in the infobox- The Korean Head of State is not the Prime Minister but the President. --DandanxD 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that change, be aware that 'heads of government', not necessarily 'heads of state' will be attending. For example, New Zealand will be represented by a Prime Minister who is head of government, not by a Governor-General who is the head of state. Ajayvius 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am very aware of that- and as you can read from my previous post, I was specifically talking about the Korean head of state.--DandanxD 13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC seem to have a fairly comprehensive list of crticisms of the security arrangements at the APEC summit in this news article, it seems to me worthy to be worked in, but I'm not at the moment prepared to do it myself. I jsut thought I should bring this source up. --The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 13:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kill the photos[edit]

Exactly what value are photographs of a loudspeaker, George Bush's car or the skyline of Perth? How do they serve this article? We are probably going to need no more than two or three pics to give enough information - say the Sydney skyline, the photo ops and maybe a protest photo if it is noteworthy. Kransky 10:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They make the article look like a photo essay. Many of photos are interesting though, though I'm not sure where they belong. --Nick Dowling 23:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the generic photos of APEC-related places and aircraft but have left the photos of the security arrangements in Sydney as these seem relevant. --Nick Dowling 00:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also going to have to question why we have a picture of a loudspeaker, seem somewhat superfluous really. Tonerman 06:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket launchers[edit]

Should this be mentioned: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2021342.htm ? 58.7.122.24 06:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although you have proof that nine rocket launchers have been stolen; you have no proof what the use of the rocket launchers are. theOne 09:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ajihood 12:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chasers war on everything[edit]

Should something be mentioned about the chasers war on everything "security" breach - http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/chaser-duo-held-over-motorcade-stunt/2007/09/06/1188783378804.html Peachey88 09:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should get rid of "However this is proof of how ineffective the security was." It does not prove that. They were detained, there were police everywhere, there was no way they could get in the building. Even though they made it as far as they did, it is not proof of ineffective sercuity, if anything it emphasises the effectiveness. They were stoped. I changed it to "This created suspicion and scrutiny on the effectiveness of the security that had been emphasised as "overkill"." Hope that is ok.Ajihood 12:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, you don't need to get inside a building to bomb it... and anyway the security of the building is not in question, it's the security of the "red zone", all "$250 000 000" of it, police were everywhere but they didn't challenge vehicles which were unauthorised to be there, even at checkpoints... according to the front page story of today's Courier-Mail:

" A source inside The Chaser said the team never expected to get as far as they did. The skit had been approved by ABC lawyers but it was assumed they would be stopped at the first checkpoint. "It was a piece testing APEC security and the motorcade looked pretty authentic," The Chaser's source said. when police waved them through the red zone, Licciardello got out of a car dressed as Osama bin Laden and said "I'm an important world leader why don't I have a seat at the APEC table?". "Apparently that was the first time the police realised it was not authentic and they swooped," the insider said. The Chaser crew disguised their convoy as official vehicles of the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who had not yet arrived in Australia when they made their dash into the APEC red zone. "

The point is that $250 million dollars was spent on Security for this thing and yet the people running the check points did not even have a time sheet or list of approved vehicles [they had number-plates just like every other vehicle, other than Bush's convoy of course :)] The comedians were as surprised as anyone that they got as far as they did. It is a clear demonstration of too many dollars and not enough sense, they can go round beating their chests about water cannons and helicopters and snipers, but they just got completely outsmarted by a bunch of comedians who get promptly challenged by shopping centre security guards almost every week! Maybe all the security money has gone into controlling demonstrators and not potential saboteurs and terrorists.
It will not be hard to find a dozen sources to say that this breach demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the APEC security. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 03:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this as per WP:NOTNEWS, if something comes from it (change in security measures etc) then feel free to add it back in 121.218.72.128 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the "Chaser Incident" section is removed on NOTNEWS grounds than the entire "APEC in action" section would have to go. WikiTownsvillian 06:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"On 6 September 2007, two members of satirical comedy group The Chaser, Julian Morrow and Chas Licciardello, were detained by NSW Police outside the InterContinental Hotel after drivi" <wasnt there 11 members from the chaser team arrested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachey88 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was 11 people detained/arrested from their motocade prank "Eleven people were arrested and were charged with entering a secure area, with police saying they were considering more charges." from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/07/2027186.htm?section=entertainment

Peachey88 07:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Agree with WikiTownsvillian on inclusion of this section. Recurring dreams 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we even having this discussion? It's been the single most publicised event of the entire summit so far, and will probably be the most remembered bit of it. Rebecca 08:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

$3000000 put into security and comedians get through. I think that's probably the funniest thing going on at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.254.95.238 (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph is very similar to the one in the chaser article. Does it make sense to maintain them both? Muzzamo 01:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts[edit]

This article will need to be edited as soon as it is no longer a current event, by wchih i refer to only small, tense-related edits. I agree that there are too many photos - the picture of traffic could perhaps be used, as it illustrates the effect of security on the CBD. However, I feel that some of the other photos are somewhat ridiculous. The photograph of a minute helicopter in the sky does not seem appropriate as per WP:Images (3.1). This article will need WP:CUcleanup following the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamessugrono (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

President Bush's side trip[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that the PoTUS made a quick (and seemingly secret) trip to St Ives on Sydney's north shore for a spot of mountain-bike riding on September 5th after his visit to Kirribilli House? Anyone know how he got there and back?

Reference: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/06/2025392.htm

Mention should also be made that the trip to Kirribilli was made across the harbour from Man-o-War Steps (Opera House) rather than via the Harbour Bridge as Dick Cheney did a when he was in town. ChrisB 00:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how either is really notable - and they certainly don't have much to do with the conference. In about a week's time I doubt that many people will be interested about Bush's every move in Australia. --Nick Dowling 06:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might even ask why the arrival of the US President was even made a point in this article. Many leaders arrived, why not cover them all? I see nothing important or particularly noteworthy about the arrival of a single leader among many. I might suggest that it be reduced to a non header section or some sort, or even removed. It kinda seems like a PoV issue, Like we are trying to say that the President of the US is more important then other leader. Anyone else got a view on this?Tonerman 06:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you entirely on this point if this hadn't occurred. Unfortunately, when the US President makes a complete idiot of himself, people tend to notice. =\ Narco 09:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Bush saying dumb things is notable either - it's not like it's unusual. I've removed the whole section as it seems to be basically trivia and is inconsistant with the lack of attention paid to the other leaders. The photo is probably a copyright violation as well. --Nick Dowling 10:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that it's not worth at least mentioning (I can guarantee you someone is going to re-add it when The Daily Show and/or The Colbert Report have their say), but it's not important enough to matter. Bill Maher's bit is definitely unnecessary, which is why my edit summary was "i couldn't resist". Narco 12:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with others who say Bush's many gaffes is worth of mentioning. It got several news coverage and should be added. Here's a good article that lists his many gaffes over the past week:[1] - Throw 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • achoo*...sorry, I am allergic to antiamericanism from ignorant people. Travis Cleveland (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney Distraction[edit]

Holy crap this is biased Gmip 07:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was copied and pasted from a green group's media release --Nick Dowling 07:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I deleted it. That's not to say any of the information was untrue, or the opinion behind it was invalid - but a referenced/cited statement saying that 'some groups opposed such-and-such' in the appropriate section is what belongs there. timgraham 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fence[edit]

I'm surprised there's virtually no mention of the fence that was constructed for the event. News of it (the "Great Wall of Sydney" or "Rabble-Proof Fence") reached the UK.--86.149.54.206 11:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bush's Gaffes[edit]

He said "OPEC" instead of "APEC" and then thanked Prime Minister Howard for "austrian" support in Iraq.

I was a bit surprised to find no mention of that on this article. Are we so used to President Bush that we now ignore this stuff? Most world leaders would make headlines, if they were confused about what summit they were attending and who was hosting it.

There should be at least a note about it, shouldn't there?. Nobody wants to put undue focus on one leader in particular, but none of the other leaders seemed to be confused about where they were. If any had been, it's a good bet that it would be in this article. 75.153.202.25 12:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's been brought up already. Part of the reason it was removed was probably that there were two extra paragraphs dedicated to "Bush's arrival". I was personally going to refrain from re-adding the bit, but if yet another person comes here wondering why it's not there, feel free to put it back:
Bush made international headlines with a series of faux pas during his initial speech. He corrected himself when he accidentally referred to APEC as "OPEC", though when thanking the Australian Defence Force for its cooperation, he used the phrase "Austrian troops", after which he appeared to exit the stage he was speaking on in the wrong direction.[1] According to American comedian Bill Maher, "He was going to step on a rake and have it hit in the head, but he’s saving that for the French."[2]
Cheers. Narco 13:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be the same subject covered here? --The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 13:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not appropriate for this article then just add it to the Bushism article. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Bush made several gaffes I think are worth of mentioning. I agree with others who say Bush's many gaffes is worth of mentioning. It got several news coverage and should be added. Here's a good article that lists his many gaffes over the past week:[2] - Throw 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting minor gaffes by Bush in a full paragraph near the top of the article seriously detracts from the events of significance that occurred. Consequently, I removed the paragraph which amounts to little more than trivia. 70.110.239.244 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it shouldn't be at the top of the article. I disagree with you that it doesn't warrant mention considering the news coverage it got. I've moved it to a more appropriate place so it doesn't overshadow what is actually important. - Throw 18:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is relevant to the topic of the article. Considering how many verbal gaffes Bush makes, this is not a consequential event. An encyclopedia article on a news event should cover the serious newsmaking aspects of the event, not the ones that are routine and/or merely humorous. Basically, Bush gaffes are routine enough to not be noteworthy, and I don't think you can make a serious argument othewise. 70.110.239.244 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Bush does this kind of thing frequently doesn't mean it's not noteworthy. So what if it's routine for Bush? It was a major news story of the summit, and as far as I'm concerned it's not at all humerous when the "leader of the free world" doesn't know where he is or why he's there.
As an aside, it seems evident from news coverage that his problems stemmed from reading prepared text - could it be that Mr. Bush is dyslexic? 75.153.202.25 02:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the section as there seems to be no good reason to keep it. At best this material would belong at wikiquote under a dumb things said by George W. Bush section. --Nick Dowling 08:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think that the President of the US mistaking OPEC for APEC isn't relevant to this article? WikiTownsvillian 08:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - it was a slip of the tongue from someone who does this all the time. It's not like he actually thought that he was at OPEC (unless you can provide a citation saying that he did think he was at OPEC) or that John Howard had visited Austrians in Iraq. --Nick Dowling 08:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we also add his inability to say "Jemaah Islamiyah"? Sad mouse 03:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what... the fact that we're having this discussion and so many people have contributed to it I think means devoting one sentence or two to the speech is OK. It's not a major part of the event, but it did raise enough eyebrows for a mention in passing. Narco 08:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that it was a top story in media all over the world on september 8th, and deserves at least some mention in this article. Whether or not he really believed he was at OPEC, or that Howard was leader of the Austrians, is irrelevant. Lol, whether or not he can pronounce "Jemaah Islamiyah" or anything else even more so.
These were starling errors, even for Bush. They made headlines around the world. If any other leader BUT Bush had made mistakes like those, there would have been considerable uproar. However, it WAS a leading news story on the 8th. That alone should make it notable.
I don't know if it deserves its own section - perhaps there should be a trivia section, or something along those lines, where a comment could be placed along with whatever other minor points of interest.
There is no sound editorial reason to not mention it at all, and I find it somewhat . . . interesting that a half-dozen people suddenly appeared on this page for no evident reason but to back up the decision to remove these references.
I'd hate to think that we'd need arbitration on this page over such a simple and obviously notable reference, but an edit war is good for nobody. BlinkWit 21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070907/APEC_BUSH_070907/20070907?hub=TopStories&s_name=
  2. ^ http://www.billmaher.com/?page_id=204

Major decisions[edit]

After all that effort and cost - that is it ? -- Beardo 14:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Howabout the fact this stupid summit achieved nothing, I think that should be mentioned as well as the fact it cost probably more than a billion to the economy with the APEC itself being more than 350 million then you have to take into account the loss in productivity over the week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.206.53 (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

APEC is, in a way, not really supposed to anything. This probably won't satisfy many people and some will want it gone, but the whole point is having a meeting at all. APEC has far more population and far larger economy than any other such meeting (with addition of India and Pakistan, there won't be any chance of anything larger), so it essentially is more similar to an UN general assembly than anything else and we all know how smoothly things are decided there. There's far more trouble to change to be a decision making body and far more trouble to scrap it all together. --Revth 09:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Light Aircraft, Jets and flares[edit]

I was quite shocked that this doesn't get a mention anywhere in the article;

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=171769&version=1&template_id=39&parent_id=21

can I pop a line or two in there somewhere? LookingYourBest 14:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, can you? --The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information on what was covered at APEC[edit]

There appears to be little information in the article about the outcomes of the meeting, or what was actually done in the meeting. Does anyone actuall know what went on, or is information about this lacking. The article seems to skirt around the function and content of the meetings. 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Better picture[edit]

This picture covers more of the leaders of the APEC summit as well as make King George look even more foolish. - Throw 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on APEC Australia 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on APEC Australia 2007. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on APEC Australia 2007. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:APEC_Australia_2007&oldid=1197153822"