Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed/2004/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page contains nominations from the main collaboration of the week page which have been removed due to lack of votes or because they're unsuitable nominations from November 1 to November 9, 2004.

Contents

[edit] hearing (law) (2 votes in 1 week)

Nominated October 24; needs 5 votes by October 31 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:40, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 16:09, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • There's a vote for deletion of this page. I recommend that that be resolved before we proceed with this nomination. In addition, I doubt whether there is much that the community can add to this article. Shorne 18:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Civil war (20 votes in 5 week)

Nominated September 28; needs 25 votes by November 2 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Alarm 09:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Graham ☺ | Talk 11:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. PlasmaDragon 19:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. [[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 22:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 17:01, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Farside 21:33, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. Maurreen 06:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Davodd 23:28, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Chopchopwhitey 01:57, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. pir 23:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. ZayZayEM 08:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. Donar Reiskoffer 14:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. Thepedestrian 04:13, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  15. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 07:40, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Golbez 21:40, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  17. NeoJustin 02:14, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  18. KNewman 16:41, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  19. RJH 19:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  20. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 13:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
24.91.21.253 02:40, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) - "only registered users should vote" -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The most common form of war in modern times gets one paragraph and a list. There's a lot to be said about the development of the concept of civil war over the centuries. Also, the effect civil warfare tend to have on a country and its population, economically as well as socially, should certainly be covered.
  • Almost nominated this myself lst week. Davodd 23:28, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • While many articles are in need of expansion this one is a lot longer than a lot of other nominees. It certainly is far from being a stub at this point.AndyL 21:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. I've withdrawn my vote. Thanks for pointing this out. Shorne 03:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Economy of Europe (12 votes in 3 weeks)

Nominated October 13; needs 15 votes by November 3 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. SimonP 19:51, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. PlasmaDragon 19:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Graham ☺ | Talk 23:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Shorne 16:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Maurreen 15:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Ravn 10:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Xed 10:46, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. Wonderfool 10:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. NeoJustin 01:53, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Spug 11:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 13:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. Warofdreams 10:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A massive topic but an important one, especially seeing how closely integrated the continent is. I have recently been working on Economy of Africa and it would be great to have a similarly constructed article for an economically very different continent to allow readers to compare and contrast the two. - SimonP 19:51, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps work should also be done on Economy of Asia, Economy of North America, Economy of Australia, and Economy of South America? (Possibly even Economy of Antartica?)
  • I wonder whether "EU economy" might be better. Maurreen 15:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I think not. Much of Europe is not in the EU. Also, "Economy of Europe" is parallel to "Economy of Africa". Shorne 22:28, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • How meaningful can this be, given that Europe is not a single economic unit? Filiocht 10:53, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
That's why I suggested EU. Maurreen 14:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think you're right. Filiocht 14:12, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • We could make it like the Economy of Africa. That article is not about a single economic unit and it is a pretty good article. I don't know about that Economy of Antartica. What kind of an economy does Antartica have? NeoJustin 02:53, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Does it have an economy? No state, no production, no markets -- only imports, all of it. ✏ Sverdrup 11:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I think you may be confusing Europe with the EU. Europe has numerous states, much production and large markets. Warofdreams 12:11, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --Conti|✉ 01:34, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gang (17 votes in 4 weeks)

Nominated October 7; needs 20 votes by November 4 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Rmhermen 14:02, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Shorne 14:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:49, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  4. PlasmaDragon 16:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. J3ff 23:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:29, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Jeff8765 02:35, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Maurreen 03:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. ZZ 09:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. Tuf-Kat 09:06, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  11. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 14:06, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. Conti|✉ 17:54, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Sayeth 15:46, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Jmabel | Talk 01:22, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  15. NeoJustin 04:49 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Jason 02:21, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Sam [Spade] 21:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Miserably short, poorly organized. Americocentric (or maybe North Americocentric, if that is a word). Rmhermen 14:02, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Recently launched WikiProject Countering systemic bias keeps a list of articles at which all cover their topics from a U.S. or developed world perspective only. "Gang" has now been added to this list. Anyone interested in this very common problem of Wikipedia articles is welcome to join the project. Alarm 15:55, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Needs "types of gangs," "gang structure," "history of gangs," difference between gangs, paramilitaries, organized crime, and terrorist groups. Also "gang activities," "list of notable gangs." [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:49, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Gang weapons, too. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:39, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fudge (candy) (7 votes in 2 weeks)

Nominated October 22; needs 10 votes by November 5 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:18, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Shorne 11:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. ✏ Sverdrup 12:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:39, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Tuf-Kat 21:08, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Golbez 22:05, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Burgundavia 03:07, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I came to the article to see if I could learn something about the candy I like so much. I was horrified to find a stub where so much more could be said about the stuff. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:18, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll contribute to this article if you bring the fudge. Shorne 11:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Finally a topic we can sink our teeth into that does not require knowledge of geo-politics. ;-) [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:39, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this be at just fudge, the candy is by far the most common usage. - SimonP 02:07, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mosh (music video) (1 vote in 1 week)

Nominated October 29; needs 5 votes by November 5 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Pedant 18:00, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is an article about an Eminem video that was released just days ago free to the public. It deals with the issue of election apathy. It's a non partizan message to get kids to vote, and the video itself is pretty NPOV for a rap video, has a good message too. (I recommend you see the video even if you don't like rap music.) The video is so popular that The Internet Archive has noticed a marked increase in server traffic since it was made available there. I think the article is fairly good at this point, but would be a great featured article with a little work. Because of its timely nature, with the upcoming election, it would be awesome to feature this article, this week. It very well might draw some more editors from around the world -- one of the goals of the Countering systemic bias project.Pedant 18:00, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
  • Of course I support this as I downloaded the video, watched it, nominated the article and worked about an hour on it. (still not sure if it's appropriate to vote on your own nomination)Pedant
    • There's no problem with supporting your own nomination. But, as you said, the article is pretty good already, and CotW might not be the right place to expand it further. If you have a look at the /History section, you see that a collaboration of the week now usually takes over 2 months from the day it was nominated to the day it becomes the CotW, so this is not the best project for current event articles. --Conti|✉ 18:12, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • Agreed - not enough room for expansion as a COTW. violet/riga (t) 23:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Good advice. Thanks.Pedant 02:23, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 Summer Paralympics (47 vote in 12 weeks)

Nominated August 14; needs 48 votes by November 6 (minimum 4 votes per week)

Support

  1. Ambi 12:33, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Tom- 16:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mpolo 16:42, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Neutrality 19:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Conti|✉ 19:31, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  6. PlasmaDragon 23:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Lockeownzj00 07:27, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Farside 19:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. Tothebarricades.tk 03:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. TPK 05:21, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. Lyellin 09:27, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
  12. dpol 14:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. RickK 04:57, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  14. zoney ▓█▒ talk 12:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  15. Burgundavia 08:36, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  16. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 23:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. Average Earthman 10:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  18. Ludek9 15:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. [[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 16:03, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC) - could be an opportunity to put other sources to shame?
  20. • Benc • 18:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  21. Graham ☺ | Talk 03:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  22. Dysprosia 05:58, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  23. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 13:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  24. user:zanimum
  25. Weasel
  26. Ravn 20:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  27. Revth 03:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  28. Cwoyte 08:08, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  29. Jayjg 16:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  30. \ wolfenSilva / 19:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  31. Martewa 11:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  32. Alex Krupp 02:20, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  33. func(talk) 03:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  34. violet/riga (t) 18:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  35. Scottbeck 16:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  36. Guus 19:57, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  37. Shorne 03:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  38. Radagast 01:01, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  39. AlexR 01:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  40. Valentino 16:39, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  41. Golbez 21:40, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC) (bandwagon)
  42. Bearcat 04:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  43. Matthewmayer 19:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  44. KNewman 21:01, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  45. Rj 03:55, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  46. Felix Wan 08:05, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
  47. Falsifian 04:14, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
Peter9 20:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) This user is a probable sockpuppet, having made only two edits, one to this page and one to the page being nominated. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:40, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Dragan 20:08, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) This user is a probable sockpuppet, having made only three edits, all to this page. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:40, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Query: How can you tell? -Litefantastic 23:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The page titled Special:Contributions/Sverdrup will display a complete edit history for the user Sverdrup. This link is available from every user page, and every user has a link to their Contributions page in the bar at the top. ✏ Sverdrup 00:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Substub. Shame, Wikipedia, shame. Ambi 12:33, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agfh! Fix it! Tom- 16:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Def needs fixing- even more so since TV Coverage is slim to non-existant. Lyellin 09:27, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Who cares? The paraolympics don't have a hundredth of the political and cultrual impact of the regular olympics, and there are a lot of other issues which need covering that are a lot more important. EastNile 16:54, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • More important? I suppose you'd prefer for politically and culturally unimportant disabled people to be shut up in institutions.
    • I'd sooner cover this than the "regular" Olympics, which are a nauseating festival of commercialism and idiotic patriotism. Shorne 03:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a major topic that needs to be followed as extensively as the Olympics are. RickK 04:57, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Didn't even realise they were on at the same time, I thought they were scheduled differently. This is different from the Special Olympics though, isn't it? zoney ▓█▒ talk 12:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • They're not on at the same time, the 2004 paralympics is the 17th to 28th of September. As for not being important, the BBC is showing an hour and a half of coverage per night, so at least one major broadcaster views it as being of some importance. Average Earthman 10:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's support the under-recognised for once! -- user:zanimum
  • it hasnt even begun yet! why don't you wait until at least a couple months after it's finished to promote it? it doesn't make sense to work it up when there will be much more to add later on. --Jiang 09:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Erm, today is the 12th, Jiang. The Paralympics start on the 17th, and end on the 28th. This is currently third or fourth in line, which means it's almost definitely going to end a week or two after the Paralympics conclude, which is perfect. If it had been nominated any later, it would've actually got to be COTW so late that it would be practically useless, as they would have been over so long before that all the interest would have passed. Ambi 10:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • People are voting on its current status. There is no guarantee or indication that no one will be interested on the article as the Paralympics are held and the article could very well be improved and not need to be the COTW to be unstubbed (not a stub at the moment and reasonable length for an article on a future event). This would be a waste. I really don't see the logic behind the claim that people will lose interest later on and therefore make this unsuitable for COTW - the point of COTW is to get people's attention. If the article already gets people's attention (like to summer olympics), when why make it the COTW? In this context, my comment really does appear to make a whole lot of sense. --Jiang 11:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't all this effort go into Paralympic Games rather than a single event? The 2004 games article is really just a child article of the Paralympic Games parent, and the parent needs help. Filiocht 13:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • While I agree that the Paralympic Games article needs work, so does this one. It really needs the attention, and it would help set a standard that could then be used for all previous Paralympics. Ambi 13:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Do not count sock puppets. --Jiang 10:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Neutrality, you have voted for this twice. I removed the second one, sorry. - Taxman 17:16, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have to comment: every Olympic year, it drives me crazy that the Olympics get virtually unavoidable media coverage, while most people don't even realize the Paralympics exist. The Globe and Mail even had an editorial pointing out that after all of Canada's handwringing about our athletes' disappointing Olympic performance this year, hardly anybody even noticed that we won 72 medals at the Paralympics. Seventyflippingtwo! Much agreed: a topic that needs to be so much better known than it is. But far be it from mainstream media to celebrate the achievements of the disabled, right? Bearcat 04:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll go further: why eclipse "the achievements of the disabled", or of athletes in general, with a heap of crap about which country won how many medals? Drop the patriotic rubbish and return to the subject at hand. Shorne 17:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Or he was giving an example of how the media doesn't cover the paralympics well enough - I didn't read it as patriotic at all. No need to jump on people. violet/riga (t) 19:28, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Heredity (12 votes in 3 weeks)

Nominated October 16; needs 15 votes by November 6 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Fastfission 21:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Shorne 22:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Maurreen 00:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Joe D 16:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. gadfium 00:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. RJH 22:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. ALoan (Talk) 00:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. Shane King 00:16, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Golbez 21:40, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  10. NeoJustin 02:03 Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  11. David 5000 16:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. ✏ Sverdrup

Comments:

  • Shamefully short! Should be somewhat about the history of heredity in thought (both human, plant, and animal -- Buffon, Lamarck, Darwin, Galton, Morgan, Lysenko, Watson/Crick, etc.), provide a better linkage to other articles in relation to heredity, controversy surrounding its perceived importance, use of notions of heredity in non-biological fields (sociology, politics), etc. A rich topic will be had for all! --Fastfission 21:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gated community (8 votes in 2 weeks)

Nominated October 24; needs 10 votes by November 7 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Conti|✉ 14:37, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:27, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Pedant The phenomenon, quite common in southern California appears to be common also in Venezuela, from a recent film I saw. I think this subject is worthy of more attention Pedant
  4. DV 12:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. NeoJustin 15:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Sam [Spade] 21:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Jmabel | Talk 18:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Xed 21:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I'm afraid I can't vote for this article, whose subject is, realistically speaking, specific to the US. Shorne 16:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I actually nominated this article after I read a german article about this phenomenon coming to europe, especially france. --Conti|✉ 17:23, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Most, probably all, of the articles on this page are on topics that many Wikipedians know nothing about. (I haven't had opportunity to study the Culture of Spain, for instance, and I can't fully research it because I don't read Spanish.) Finding a topic that literally everyone can contribute to is not the goal. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd be curious to find out what basis Shorne has for declaring that gated communities are "realistically speaking, specific to the US", but I'd just as soon not end up on his black list, so I am content for his reasoning to remain a mystery. :) Nevertheless, I have data both from direct observation and secondary sources of research that would seem to contradict his assertion:
In my own experiences traveling in cities in China and Mexico, most of the larger, upscale housing complexes I have observed being built within the last decade, have gates for pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles at their entrances, staffed with private security guards, that lead into one or more small residential streets, with walls or fences surrounding the perimeter of the entire development. (Many with all sorts of amenities.) These developments would seem to quality as "gated communities", but perhaps I am missing the big picture from which an expert such as Shorne could enlighten me?
In contradiction to the earlier versions of the nominated article (prior to my edits), and Shorne's comments above, it would appear that almost as many gated communities are currently being built outside of the US as inside. (It appears that the trend towards gated communities peaked in the United States sometime during the mid-90s. With the exception of Las Vegas and Southern California, there has been something of a backlash towards gated communities in the U.S. in recent years.) And this trend appears to be accelerating, given the political activism that has arisen in the US that is so hostile to such developments. While ordinances have been passed in various American communities banning gated communities, this type of activism has had little or no success in Mexico or China. (In fact, in China, all new major residential developments are gated, supposedly by law. See the section entitled Asia?s modern gated cities at this web page for an abstract of an interesting paper on this topic.)
And to clarify, it's not that I dare to question an expert such as Shorne on world affairs, it simply seems odd that someone who has traveled so extensively in modern China would not have noticed the proliferation of gated communities in that country.
In any case, this article was so badly biased with an American POV that I chose not to wait to see if this article won CotW, and I've already rewritten it. (I also added a number of relevant external links that may make for some interesting reading for anyone else who is interested in additional research into this topic. If anyone finds additional, credible research on this topic available online, please add those links to the External Links section in the main article.) --DV 12:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
First, I can do without the sarcasm, thank you.
Gated communities certainly exist in many parts of the world, but not on the same scale. The article mentions that eight million people in the US live in gated communities. That would correspond to about 37 million Chinese. Is there any evidence that anything close to that number of people in China live in gated communities?
Anyway, I never said that other people weren't free to vote for this article. I just don't consider it a high priority to write more material on élite groups when hundreds of articles on Africa alone are crying for attention. Shorne 16:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Funny you should mention Africa given the number of gated communities that exist there. Shorne, it's not that I am questioning your expertise in matters of world affairs, there is simply a bit of confusion here, if not on your part, then perhaps on the part of the original authors of this article. Someone pulled that "eight million" number out of thin air. "Gated communities" are a small subset of the number of communities that are bound by a common interest of some sort (perhaps through a homeowners association or some other covenant with the developers of a given subdivision). Common Interest Communities, CIC, (or Common Interest Developments, CID), are a superset of those communities that have physical gates that restrict access to the general public.
If you have a citation for the actual number of residents who live in gated communities within the U.S. (or in China or Mexico for that matter), please provide it, otherwise I believe your original comment concerning their specificity to the U.S. was mere speculation on your part.
If you choose to respond, referring to books with an overtly hostile political agenda against gated communities in the U.S. will not be very credible here - a neutral source would be much more credible. For example, references to "Fortress America" do not appear to be credible. For my own part, I've asked a Chinese realtor friend to help me find out some hard numbers for China. Perhaps the U.S. Census has numbers for the U.S.? Hopefully this subject can be researched without making it into a political hot potato. --DV 13:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What references to "Fortress America"? Please stop inventing things. All that I've said is that I don't consider élite cultural manifestations from the West a high priority. If you are concerned about representing Africa here, fleshing out List of African writers (by country) would be infinitely more beneficial than writing a paragraph about the housing of a few rich, Westernised Africans. Shorne 13:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Gated communities and compounds are widespread in Africa, and not just for the few. Many villages are walled. Certainly, they aren't "élite cultural manifestations from the West" inhabited by "a few rich, Westernised Africans"(!). I look forward to your fleshing out of List of African writers (by country). - Xed 21:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Bit sensitive when you don't have references to back up your assertions, eh? Your unfounded speculation is about as silly as if I had stated that the Great Wall was the entrance to the largest "gated community" in the history of the world. China had numerous gated communities thousands of years before the United States even existed, so you can stop projecting your anti-Western sentiments onto this subject, especially given that it is evident you know little about the topic, and only commented in order to hijack this thread as yet another forum to spread your point of view. --DV 15:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I made one little comment about why I felt that this article was not a good candidate for a collaboration of the week, and you promptly launched a sarcastic personal attack, bringing my politics (or your understanding thereof) into the picture and tossing around utter fabrications about "Fortress America" and the like. It is you who hijacked this thread. Say what you will until other people get tired of your nonsense and ask you to go away. For my part, I am abandoning this idiotic discussion. Shorne 15:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You started with the politics, comrade. I'll leave it to others to judge our respective "nonsense" quotients. --DV 15:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • A remarkable amount of the new housing being built in Bucharest is gated communities for the wealthy on the north outskirts of town. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • I suspect that wealthy are gated not because they want to segregate themselves, but because wealthy are a prime target for burglary (any statistics?). I lived in a gated apartment complex in Silicon Valley, and I was not wealthy at these times; rather opposite: an H1B visa white collar wage slave. Mikkalai 03:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. User:AndyL 05:48, 8 Nov 2004

[edit] Somalian Civil War (13 votes in 3 weeks)

Nominated October 17; needs 15 votes by November 7 (minimum 5 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Fuelbottle | Talk 22:30, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:47, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Shorne 09:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Conti|✉ 00:26, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  5. KNewman 22:47, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Golbez 21:40, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  7. J3ff 23:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. Xed 09:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. Meikal 11:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. Pteron 11:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. Alarm 17:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. Jason 02:23, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  13. --Jiang 06:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article is only two lines at the moment.
  • The title, however, should be Somali civil war. Shorne 09:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Currently a redirect to History of Somalia. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Apologies to Meikal, who, based on his edit history, I thought might have been a sockpuppet. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It's three paragraphs under History of Somalia, and shouldn't be turned into a separate article again without an actual big expansion. --Joy [shallot] 10:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Caribbean Sea (23 votes in 5 weeks)

Nominated October 4, 2004; needs 25 votes by November 8, 2004

Support:

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:32, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. pie4all88 23:02, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 23:32, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Joyous 23:36, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Graham ☺ | Talk 00:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Thue | talk 16:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Taxman 17:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  8. J3ff 23:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. Shorne 03:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. Sayeth 15:04, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Fuelbottle | Talk 21:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. ZayZayEM 09:04, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. Maurreen 21:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. Thepedestrian 04:14, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Conti|✉ 17:54, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  16. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 07:42, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Golbez 21:40, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  18. McMullen 02:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  19. RJH 19:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  20. Valentino 16:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  21. GSGold 01:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  22. Falsifian 04:20, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
  23. Sarge Baldy 05:46, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I'm surprised that the article is so small... --pie4all88 00:10, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oooooo, pirates and hurricanes and slave trade and plate tectonics...Joyous 23:36, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Great one. A lot of fun stuff that would be easy to research and add in. - Taxman 17:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Though we need to be careful that if we keep two articles, Caribbean and Caribbean Sea, that we keep the subjects covered accurate to their topic. Both are qualified to be here btw. - Taxman 12:37, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Count me in on this one. Sounds like fun. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm sure there's plenty of things we could add to this. GSGold 01:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'd've thought that theres not much to say about any seas really, that can't be said in Caribbean. Will there be stuff about fish? Nothing exciting happens in the sea.--Wonderfool 12:09, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Panmunjeom (8 votes in 2 weeks)

Nominated October 25, 2004; needs 10 votes by November 8, 2004

Support:

  1. Golbez 23:12, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:55, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Shorne 20:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. PedanticallySpeaking 16:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  5. AndyL 21:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Sam [Spade] 21:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. KNewman 15:12, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Mike H 06:33, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A stub and a photograph or two on one of the most tense areas in the world. --Golbez 23:12, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Can someone add some info about "incidents" at Panmunjeom, perhaps also something about the peace talks that occured there?AndyL 21:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, there are lots of incidents. Just a few years ago, the longest-standing prisoner of war in the history of the world was released and travelled home to North Korea via Panmunjeom. South Korea had held him in prison for close to 45 years because he refused to renounce communism. (He never did renounce it.)
    • And there's the case of a lady from South Korea who visited the North and returned home via Panmunjeom. South Korea arrested her on the grounds of "national security"—it's illegal in South Korea to do or say anything in support of North Korea—and sentenced her to several years in gaol. Shorne 03:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Those are good, I was thinking more of military incidents that might have flared up into a general war. AndyL 15:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, there was the case in the 1970s of a couple of US soldiers who had been sent to chop down a tree in the DMZ. I don't remember all the details, but some soldiers from the north tried to drive them away. When the US soldiers resisted, they were bludgeoned to death with the blunt end of their axe. (The South Korean soldiers with them were not harmed.) The axe is still on display in a museum on the northern side. Apparently Kissinger was pushing Ford to use the incident as a pretext for bombing North Korea. Shorne 16:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of Jews in the United States (20th Century) (3 votes in 1 week)

Nominated November 1, 2004; needs 5 votes by November 8, 2004

Support:

  1. AndyL 16:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:37, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  3. NeoJustin 23:56 Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • There's a History of the Jews in the United States (Colonial Era-1906) but nothing for most of the twentieth century. AndyL 17:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no History of Chinese in the United States either, so what? Anyway, prepare for a bloodshed and screams (hint: lawyers, mass media, finance; America is a victim of Jewish conspiracy to rule the world). Mikkalai 02:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • perhaps there should be an article on Chinese in the US. The point is that there is an article on early Jewish history in the US but nothing covering the 20th century. AndyL 03:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • History of Jews in the United States (pre-20th century) is a monster, one of the biggest articles on the wiki. I tried to edit it a few times, but apparently my browser or bandwidth or some such can't handle it. I highly recommend anyone w any measure of confidence to wade in and hack that leviathan apart. Sam [Spade] 16:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it can be divided up chronologically. Say pre-Civil War and post-Civil war and use the post civil war part as the start of what we might call History of Jews in the United States (modern) instead of 20th century?AndyL 18:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Partisans (Yugoslavia) (12 votes in 3 weeks)

Nominated October 19, 2004; needs 15 votes by November 9, 2004

Support:

  1. Gadykozma 14:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 16:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Shorne 10:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. NeoJustin 02:11 Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  5. KNewman 13:02, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  6. AndyL 21:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. —No-One Jones (m) 21:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. 172 01:13, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. john k 02:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. --Martin Wisse 18:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. Capone 20:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. Key45 18:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Please tell me they have a page and I didn't find it! The most famous partisan movement in WWII and all we have is one mention in the History of Yugoslavia and another in Tito??? Gadykozma 14:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • There are bits scattered around in partisan, resistance movement, and National Liberation Army, but, yes, most of it seems to be History of Yugoslavia. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Good topic, but there has to be a better title. Isomorphic 19:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Would you prefer Tito's Partisans? Gadykozma 00:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Were there other partisan movements in Yugoslavia besides WWII? If not, the title is fine. Also, I'd love to vote in favor of the topic, but I made myself a moral obligation to vote only for the subjects I can contribute (or for those where I will be forced to break my moral obligations :-) Mikkalai 21:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • If the article is about all the partisans in Yugoslavia than the title is appropriate. If it is specifically about Tito's partisans then it probably should be called Yugoslav National Liberation Army as that was the name of Tito's guerilla force.AndyL 21:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I concur. There were, after all, the Chetniks, who already have an article. john k 02:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The title is fine, they may not have been the only guerilla at the time but they were the ones known as the Partisans. --Joy [shallot] 10:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not support the current naming, simply becasue this title is somehow artificial nowadays. For over 50 years this military antifascist force was known as Yugoslav NLA - at least on a territory of Balkans, from where it came from. There were no other partisan forces on the territory of Yugoslavia. For instance Slovene partisan forces (NOV in PO Slovenije - NLA and Partisan Detachments of Slovenia) were 'embed' (I don't know proper term - don't laugh) with the Army. But they have operated independently (liberation of Trieste) and also together with the 4th Army, and so on. The former name IMHO was better. But there were also other antifascisc movements (TIGR for instance, which were not connected with 'partisans'). The Chetniks were formed mostly from the Yugoslav royal army, which has surrendered, under Dragoljub Mihailović. At first they were 'on the right side', but they have decided to collaborate with the Wehrmacht against Tito's partisans. Tito's partisans didn't know that they will win and that a socialist society with one party system will be formed in a new country. The rest is history.. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 06:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The NLA name is overelaborate for the title in today's context, the name "Partisans" is better known locally anyway. They started as partisans (in the generic meaning) and eventually evolved into a reasonably well organized army, but everyone knew them simply as partizani. --Joy [shallot] 10:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)