Talk:Battle of Seattle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 1999

The current text for the first entry is confusing. It reads:

However, Battle of Seattle (1999) and WTO Meeting of 1999 both go to the same place, eventually, which is WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999; however the Battle of Seattle (1999) route goes past the seemingly useless WTO Meeting of 1999 page, which is just a redirect. So, uh, I'm going to change it. If I'm treading on any toes here let me know, I'm pretty new here. Thanks. Kiaparowits 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I changed it, but I'm still not very happy with it. I seems like the article should be named something other than WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999, because it doesn't actually talk that much about the conference. I guess Battle of Seattle is too POV? That's certainly how I hear it most commonly reffered to, by left and right alike (but that may just be where I live).

More talk at WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999.Kiaparowits 19:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

We've been through a lot of refactoring over that article; there was some (mostly POV) material about street actions around conference that I think was originally at Battle of Seattle, probably by someone unaware that there had been an actual battle here in 1856. And we just haven't had anyone write much yet about the events of the Ministerial itself.
However, I think the old description (although too verbose for a disambiguation page) was more accurate, even if the links perhaps didn't go where they should. Battle of Seattle refers to the civil unrest surrounding the Ministerial, not to the Ministerial itself. This is a case of disambiguation to a title that is not a synonym but is simply the place where the topic is covered within an article on something else. I'd like to change it (mostly) back to "you may be looking for information on: The civil unrest that occurred in Seattle, Washington, in connection with the WTO Meeting of 1999. Any problem with that? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm with you Jmabel --Lukobe 22:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
That's OK with me. Your proposal is more accurate. Perhaps when there is more information about the agenda of the Ministerial, I will re-evaluate breaking it into two articles.Kiaparowits 04:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)