Talk:U.S. Route 66

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article U.S. Route 66 was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Contents

[edit] Comments

The "66" U.S. Route designation was "decommissioned" by The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1985. The U.S. Route 66 Recommissioning Initiative seeks to get the U.S. 66 designation reinstated and the famous Route resigned and put back on standard highway maps. For further information on the Initiative, go to: http://www.bringbackroute66.com

-Fred M. Cain, U.S. Route 66 Recommissioning Initiative

What is wrong with United States Highway 66? The "historic" part isn't needed. --mav

I agree, or even Route 66 - Zoe

Rename it then. It was this way when I found it. Presumably someone was wrestling with the issue that it is known around the world as Route 66 but officially designated something else. There is also an unrelated Interstate 66. Ortolan88

I went with Route 66 since this highway is popularly known by this title and this highway is decommissioned so it no longer has an official title as such. --mav

With all these redirects, somebody's going to lose some information. Route 66 should be a redirect; United States Highway 66 -- Historic describes the former U.S. highway that no longer exists; Interstate 66 describes that highway; and of course there's New Jersey State Highway 66. -- Gregory Pietsch

But nobdody calls Route 66 "United States Highway 66 -- Historic." Please read our naming conventions about common names. The historic Route 66 by any measure you want to use, is the most famous thing called "Route 66" in the world - therefore our article on this route needs to go there. The disambiguation block will serve anybody who gets lost. --mav
Anyone who wants to look in the encyclopedia for Route 66 should be able to find it here, under its rightful name, Route 66; likewise Interstate 66 can be found under its name. It's fine that New Jersey has a highway with that number too, but half the article is limp jokes about its not being the Route 66 you've heard of. I imagine there are highways numbered 66 in other states as well.
Not one reader will ever be confused by having to go one more click from here if they are looking for a short cut to Asbury Park, but many people will be confused if they can't find one of the most famous highways in the world under the name it has been known by for three-quarters of century. Disambiguation in this case introduces ambiguity. A simple See also will cover the obscure cases while preserving the main article under its own name. Ortolan88
I agree that full disambiguation is not at all called for here, but I do think we should have a simple disambiguation block (as the article now has). --mav

I'm about to embark on my first "Project" -- creating a page for each US highway, probably based on information from this site (with permission). I'm going to update the List of United States Highways to use the standard notation, "United States Highway (number)". As far as Route 66, it seems appropriate to put the main listing under Route 66, since it's no problem to redirect United States Highway 66. I'm dropping the "--Historic" suffix, though -- that seems like content, not title. I would welcome any comments or suggestions on my project! RobertB

Just an update. The "standard" notation (unless someone changes it later) is now like this: U.S. Highway 77 But there are a lot of links out there like United States Highway 77, so it makes sense to redirect them. Route 66, I believe, is a credible exception to the rule, with both U.S. Highway 66 and United States Highway 66 redirecting to Route 66. Comments welcome, of course (drop a note in my talk so I don't miss it). --Robertb-dc 00:54, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The combination of the highway number, the speed of the car and even the fuel's specific gravity in the range of 66 led to the creation of Phillips 66 gasoline

I've removed the bit about the specific gravity because it can't possibly be right. 66 times the density of water? A gallon of the stuff would weigh over 500 pounds. The hydrocarbons in gasoline are a bit less dense than water. For example, n-octane has a specific gravity of about 0.7. Perhaps its density in some commonly used units was near 66 (grams per 100 ml?), but not its specific gravity. Josh Cherry 02:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see that the claim about specific gravity has been put back. Could you please check what reliable sources say? As I stated above, a density of 66 times that of water, which is what a specific gravity of 66 would mean, is out of the question. From the article on density you can see that the specific gravity of the densest naturally occurring substance on Earth, iridium, is only about 23. This page shows that, with the exception of mercury (specific gravity about 13), the specific gravities of liquids don't get much above one. In particular, it gives the specific gravity of gasoline as 0.739. This number will vary among gasolines, and perhaps blends were very different back then, so it's conceivable that the specific gravity was 0.66 (perhaps referred to informally as 66). There's no way it was 66. Josh Cherry 23:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Likely it was .667, which is good enough for an engineer to use as "inspiration." Here's a racing fuel: Specific Gravity: .676 @ 60°F according to [1] (yeah, a gearhead forum : ) Gaviidae 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal - move to U.S. Highway 66

This is where all the other U.S. Highways are (including historic ones, like US 99). Route 66 can continue to redirect here, with one line at the top saying "for other roads numbered 66, see Route 66 (disambiguation)". The latter should be done anyway, as there are many route 66s around the world, but I feel the former is important too to make the name consistent with all others. --SPUI (talk) 02:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metric System

The universally adopted unit system is the metric system. There can be some local variations in a few countries, but this should not appear in an Encyclopedia. I changed all measures in this article in kilometres --Ocollard 13:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

There's been no formal decision from this community on a system of measurement. However, since this article was originally written with US measurements, since the subject of this article is something within the US, and since all official information on the road is listed in miles with kilometers in parentheses, I'm inclined to leave it as it was. - jredmond 14:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Please do not be ridiculous. This is a US road; arguably, the most American of all American highways. Americans use miles and most don't have a firm grasp of metric. You may not like that, but that's the reality. To change the measurements in the article about, of all things, Route 66, a road on which (like all roads in the US) measurements are measured in miles for people who think in miles, to metric-only is absolutely unsupportable. I will take this dispute to Request for Comments if you continue to revert.
Edit: I would even support a KM first (MI in parantheses) format due to the truth that metric is the norm everywhere but the U.S. But to entirely take out references to miles in an article about Route 66? That's denying pertinent information to users of this encyclopedia. Moncrief 20:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is ridiculous to use the metric system in an Encyclopedia. We are not writing an article for the local newspaper, but for the whole world. I am sorry if the locals use a non standard measurement system but here everyone use the metric system. I feel pretty bad to write an article that 95% of people can't understand due to the use of an obsolete measurement system. This is a US road right, but this article tries to shows this road to the entire world, not just the USAians. I am reverting to the standard metric system, unless there is a specific policy in Wikipedia that says the contrary. --Ocollard 21:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not ridiculous to use the metric system, but in the U.S. everything is signed in miles. Thus miles should be first. --SPUI (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

We are not writing an article for the local newspaper, but for the whole world.

Right. That's why we have Metric AND the Imperial system (still, by the way, used for distance measurements in the U.K. quite commonly).

I am sorry if the locals use a non standard measurement system but here everyone use the metric system.

Why is your "here" more important than my "here"? Why can't both values be in the article?

I'm afraid your logic is really clouded, Ocollard. There are 300 million million Americans, of whom I'd generously say 200 million have no concept of Metric. This is an English-speaking encyclopedia. The USA is the largest English-speaking country in the world. This road is in the United States. If you continue to take out the mileage information, you will be reverted to infinity. I don't care if the miles go first or second, that information stays in. Whatever it takes. And there are plenty of people who have this article on their watchlist who will revert you within minutes. Moncrief 22:52, May 12, 2005 (UTC)


Edit: Okay, I'm a bit slow. I see you were just changing the order and not removing miles entirely. Oops. Still, it does make more sense that miles should go first. Moncrief 23:07, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can possibly push an obsolete measurement system in an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is aimed at the whole world, not just one country. The whole world is more than 6 billion people. USA is about 300 million. Sorry if you use an outdated system. This encyclopedia is designed to inform people. By using a system that 95% of people don't understand, you are crippling this. Righ, this article is about a road in USA. But this article is not aimed at USAians only, it is aimed at people from the whole world, so they can know what Route 66 is. We cannot use a system that only a very small number of people know, it is un-encyclopedic. --Ocollard 08:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Once you explain how putting miles first is less informative, I'll start to give a shit about your argument. --SPUI (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Stop being defensive. Miles are used only by one country, by less than 5% of the world populations. The goal of the Encyclopedia is to inform. I suggest you to cool your head and understand than the universal measurement system is the metric system. Other locals and outdated system have no place in an Encyclopedia --Ocollard 09:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

  • If any set of humanity uses something other than the metric system, then the metric system is not "universal".
  • The goal of this encyclopedia is to inform, but not to force any group to conform to a particular way of thinking. cf. UK vs. US spellings, NPOV
  • All official resources on this road list miles first, then kilometers in parentheses. The miles are measured, while the km are usually calculated; therefore the miles are more accurate.
  • Any visitor to this road will find all signage and references in miles.
  • Miles are still an intelligible measurement to citizens of many Commonwealth nations, even though those nations have officially switched to metric.
  • So far, the consensus appears to be strongly in favor of the "miles (km)" format on the measurements in this main article.

Now, in light of these, please explain again why you insist on reverting and why you insist on calling us vandals for restoring the original version. - jredmond 14:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"The goal of this encyclopedia is to inform, but not to force any group to conform to a particular way of thinking" Exactly. Why do you want to force the 95% of people in the world who use the standard metric system, to conform to this obsolete system ? Sorry but if a system is used by 95% of the world population, then it is considered as a standard. The metric system is universal. Almost every country in the world use it. If you write an article with non metric system, only 5% of the world population can understand it. If you write an article with metric system, 95% of the world population can understand it. Now, this is an Encyclopedia. The goal is to inform. What is the best system to put in an Encyclopedia ?

People who insist in writing in an non-metric system seem very nationalist to me. They write it in order that them, and only them can understand it. This is very selfish. I find it sad that in 2005, in an Encyclopedia, we still have to cope with an outdated measurement system. For me, forcing people to read an article written with an outdated measurement system is just vandalism. --Ocollard 10:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The only person forcing someone to read in a system that they do not understand is you. You are free and encouraged to add metric to any article that includes only English measurements. But you are not free to selfishly force other people to read in your favorite system. Rmhermen 12:35, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

The metric system is not my personnal favorite system. It is the system that everyone use, except one country. We don't write article for just one country, we write article for the whole world. By constantly revert the article to an obsolete system, you are forcing the majority of people to read a system that they don't understand. --Ocollard 12:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You are free to add the metric measurement. Go ahead. Please. Now. Just do not remove the English ones. That will be continually reverted as you can see by several different users who all share the same understanding of Wikipedia policy. But please add metric. We don't mind. We encourage it. Rmhermen 13:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
cope with an outdated measurement system.
Calling it "outdated" is YOUR POV, Ocollard. It's not outdated in the U.S. It's the system that everyone uses. It may be a minority system in the world, but as long as people use it actively, how is it "outdated"? Miles are still commonly used for distance in the U.K. When I was there two years ago, and I don't think it's changed since then, all the highway and speed-limit sings in England were still singed with miles. In other words, the two-largest English-speaking countries still commonly use miles for distance. This road is in the USA. This is an English-language encyclopedia. Deal with it. And the Metric information is already in the article - no one is advocating taking it out. What's the problem? Moncrief 19:46, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Problem is when I add metric, the article is reverted. A minority of people tend to impose their view on how we should measure things. Only USA use non metric, all other countries use metric. Why put miles first ? This makes no sense at all. --Ocollard 20:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you are putting metric values as the primary units of measure in an article for which it is inappropriate. You are welcome to add metric equivalents--that should not be reverted, but I (and I'm sure many others) will continue to revert your attempts to place metric measurements as the primary units of measure in non-technical articles about U.S. topics. older≠wiser 20:59, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Problem is when I add metric, the article is reverted.
Ocollard: No one is taking metric out of this article. There are metric values throughout this article. No one is removing them. Repeat: No one is removing them. Repeat: No one is removing them. There are Metric values in every place in this article where distance is measured.
Why put miles first?
There is a rough consensus on Wikipedia that in cases of diverse conventions, the conventions acceptable in the place the article is about should take precedence. That's been codified in the case of language: American English conventions in articles about US topics; British English conventions in articles about British topics. In the case of miles and km, most people agree that for non-technical subjects, it's acceptable to put first the measurement standard used in the country being described in an article. In the USA, that's miles. Any conception you have that miles are "worse," "outdated," and so on is your POV. Miles are just miles: a unit of measurement. They are not commonly used in most countries of the world. That makes them a minority unit of measurement worldwide, not an invalid unit of measurement in articles about U.S. topics. Moncrief 21:17, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

If it's an article about the US, miles should be first since this is what that country uses. It is also what is posted on signs (the use of kilometers on US signs are practically non-existent). US 66 was also more than a highway, it is a piece of Americana. As for the percentage of people who use kilometers vs. miles is illogical. The real question is how many people on the internet use kilometers vs. miles. I think kilometers should be used in parentheses, but the main unit of measurement should be the mile. I have written numerous articles about Missouri highways and towns on Route 66; all distances are referenced in miles. I am not accustomed to using the Metric system (though it is a better system than the traditional US system), and I am not going to start using it for the sole purpose of writing articles. If the reader wishes to know how many kilometers 9 miles is, there are plenty of places to find out. rt66lt, July 22, 2005

Whether we are using metric or imperial measurements, it is my opinion that figures have to be correct anyway. It seems to me that the length of the segment from Seligman to Kingman (AZ) is far from the 160 miles / 257 km that are mentioned in the article. I do not have the exact figures, so I did not correct anything, but I guess it should be about half of it. - Jasper Knockaert.

I checked on a road atlas, it works out to about 97 miles. That works out to 160 km, which may be the original problem. I don't know who put it there. I don't think it's relative anyway, so I removed it altogether. Rt66lt 05:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah the French, they can't just accept that some people don't like their measurement system, sorry Ocollard, haha. Travis Cleveland (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect information

I don't think the argument about metric vs. miles is helpful here. More important should be removing incorrect information. The following passage from the article is incorrect: "Avery was adamant that the highway have a round number and had proposed number 60 to identify it. Even though US 60 was already assigned to another highway, Avery went so far as to have maps printed showing his road as US 60. Faced with defeat, he relented and reviewed the numbers available to him. He settled on "66" because he thought the double-digit number would be easy to remember as well as pleasant to say and hear."

1. Avery wasn't adamant that the highway have a round number. He thought the highway should have a designation ending in "0" as this designates the road as a major east-west route, which it was. 2. US Highway 60 was not assigned to another highway. No numbers were assigned at the time of the dispute. Highway 60 was desired by other states, but not assigned. 3. He was not faced with defeat. He was the pioneer of the National Highway System and knew that compromise was the only way to get the goal accomplished. He could have easily "won" but compromise was more obviously more important. 4. Saying that Avery considered the road "his" road is biased, violates NPOV (unless there is some source which says he called it "his road") and makes it seem like this was a vanity project by Avery instead of his idea of how to make our country better for everyone. 5. I haven't found any sources which state that he thought 66 would be easy to remember or pleasant to say and hear. Can this be verified?

If this incorrect/questionable information cannot be clarified or sourced, I recommed removing the offensive passage.AboutWestTulsa 17:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Avery had deep connections with US 66 (in reference to "his road" in No. 4 above). The St. Louis to Amarillo section of a road called the Ozarks Trails was a predecessor to Route 66. Avery had been an imporant figure in this road. He did argue with a delegation from Kentucky which practically demanded the number "60" for the current road (they threatened to walk out of the whole numbering scheme if they didn't get it, they also suggested "60 North" for the Springfield (MO) - Chicago road which would become 66). Avery felt very strongly about the road going through his home town (Tulsa) and the capital of his home state (Oklahoma). After the highways were all routed, he recommended the creation of the (original) Route 66 Association (no connection to the various state associations currently in existance) to promote the highway. The continuing threat of Kentucky walking out of the new federal highway system (the federal government had no authority to force them into it), and the subsequent threat to the entire federal highway system, led him to accept Kentucky getting US 60 (at the time, proposed as US 62), found out US 66 wasn't proposed for any of the highways, and accepted it. Kentucky's compromise was to have US 60 end at US 66 in Springfield, MO (the proposed US 62 was to end at US 65 south of the city in a rural area). See Susan Kelly and Quinta Scott's Route 66. -- Rt66lt, July 11, 2005

guys, this is a great page. my problem is that the length figures given in the text and under the map are inconsistent, could someone fix this? thanks - JezWegierski —Preceding unsigned comment added by JezWegierski (talk • contribs) 05:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

The infoboxes for US highways are new. I intended to also include the Will Rogers Highway as another name (doesn't display) and the decommissioning date (also doesn't display). If anyone knows how to fix this, please do. Rt66lt 03:55, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I got the Will Rogers Highway in, but until someone knows how to add the decommissing date, I added it with the "established" date, but I'm not happy with it as it is. Rt66lt 03:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Route 66 on the Air

This material, while related to Route 66, really doesn't fit within the scope of the article. I moved it to a seperate article because its only relation to US 66 is that it takes place on 66 (it would probably be better under an article on HAM radio). Conceviably, the "Annual Events" section could be reinstated, but would need to be more of a list of events rather than a particular one. I did provide a link under "See Also". Rt66lt 02:47, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Since Route 66 on the Air was orphaned by that change, I am reinstating the U.S. Route 66#Annual events section, with R66otA as the first (and currently only) link. N0YKG 20:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railroads

Much of US 66 was built next to railroads:

Bah, this is harder than I expected. --SPUI (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company (called CRI&P), later just the “Rock Island”: from OKC, El Reno, Oklahoma, Weatherford, Oklahoma west to Sayre, Oklahoma (Choctaw, Oklahoma and Gulf Railroad took over a lease from McCabe & Steen Contractors track they had built); then on west to Tucumcari, New Mexico. The Rock Island meet their east bound work at Tucumcari, to Santa Rosa.
AT&SF from Las Vegas to Albuquerque. Then from Laguna west all the way to Barstow.

[edit] Grapes of Wrath - movie

John Steinbeck's epic novel, Grapes of Wrath, 1940 movie by director John Ford:

Scenes shot along the way (east -to- west):

  • Laguna Pueblo, New Mexico

[edit] Moved to U.S. Route 66

I have moved this to U.S. Route 66, as that is the name used by AASHTO, the Federal government, and many states. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways#Useful resource - AASHTO reports 1989-present. If there are no complaints about this or the other three I have moved in a day or so, I will move the rest. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If the article is now going to be called "U.S. Route 66", then "Category:U.S. Highway 66" should probably be changed as well. The "Category:Communities on U.S. Highway 66" should be, too. The article "List of cities on U.S. Highway 66" has been changed to "List of communities on U.S. Route 66" to match the category and Highway 66 article changes.Rt66lt 01:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length

I changed the length of US 66 to 2347 miles, about 100 miles less than shown. I got the figure from a reprint of Rittenhouse's Guide Book to Highway 66. The highway's alignment changed so much over time, I think we should go with the modern posted "historic" alignment that goes through the states and Rittenhouse's pretty much follows the same path.Rt66lt 00:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the rittenhouser book was from the 1940s and intended as a guidbook fo travellers (not as a description of the road, it's length nor of where to find it. I've changed is to the "official" (or as official as it'll ever get) 2448 miles as printed in April 1927 in American Highways. Route 66 got realigned many times and teh 2448 miles is the settle original length. All other (shorter) lengths should be connated ith the year they reflect. Significant relignments that reduced the length were done in 1937 by cutting off the Santa Fe loop. Any other length without connotation of the year results in misinformation. swa

[edit] Route 66 today

Can someone make a plain statement in the article as to whether it is possible to start in Chicago and drive along "Route 66" all the way to California in present day (2006)? Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.59.142.72 (talk • contribs)

It was there already, look in the after decertification section. I did try to clarify a little bit though. You can still drive a pretty good portion of it, there are a few long stretches in eastern New Mexico and eastern Arizona where nothing remains though. Note that many of the landmarks along it have been torn down just within the past few years as I recently discovered on my trip down Route 66 in May 06. --Nebular110 00:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In my travels on the Route I found that if the maps don't guide correctly you ask the locals and more often than not I received excellent directions to little known/publicized sections as well as the correct way to go when confused. It IS possible to travel more than half the org first and second sections of the Route, However many sections are no longer and you will have to hop on the freeway. Alesium 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Alesium

[edit] Futurama Reference

There's a direct reference to Route 66 ("root" 66) in the Futurama episode Parasites Lost, screenshot here: Route 66, can we add this picture? The Hobo 01:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. Take a look at Wikipedia's fair use guidelines to make sure but it seems like it meets the conditions for fair use of a television screenshot. My question is: What does it really add to the Route 66 article? --Nebular110 16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really add anything really.. it's just comic and clever and a tribute to the road... oh well. The Hobo 06:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LINK weeding ?

Which categories of external links do we want to keep ?

-> some could be expanded (e.g. the lists of associations, the list of museums, ...)

-> some should be removed entirely (the links in the general section (e.g. the DMOZ one covers all the rest already).

Or do we want it to be a link collection ?213.118.142.27 23:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now there is a link to a site under construction ! and one link to a roadside attraction (there a hundrerds of radside attractions, we cannot poor it all into one page) I like these people and what they do, but this isn't right for the wiki. 213.118.142.27 04:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Weeded a lot of the links in the hope it'll attract a bit less spamming 213.118.141.162 18:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Seems to be a lot of juvenile foolin' around with this page lately. Might want to consider locking it for a short while until the children go somewhere else to play....StanislavJ 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of pages that get vandalized more than this one. I think it would have to get a lot worse before that would be necessary. But we appreciate your concern. --Mwalimu59 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History notes

Obviously the detailed history should go in the state articles. Here are some general notes. --NE2 16:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • National Old Trails Road, Los Angeles, CA to Las Vegas, NM
  • Postal Highway, Amarillo, TX to Oklahoma City, OK
  • Ozark Trails, Oklahoma City, OK to St. Louis, MO (roughly)
  • Lone Star Route, St. Louis, MO to Chicago (roughly)
State highway numbers
  • CA: no signed routes
  • AZ: no signed routes
  • NM: 6, 1, 56, 3
  • TX: 13, 75
  • OK: 3, 7
  • KS: no signed routes
  • MO: 1F, 14
  • IL: 4

[edit] Good article review

I have listed this article for review as above. The standard of citation is surprisingly poor for such an important article. Geometry guy 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been delisted from WP:Good articles by unanimous consensus. The review can be found here. Lara♥Love 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Alignment?"

The term "alignment" is used several times both here and on the article page, but it's not very clear what it means in this context. Perhaps someone in the know could add a definition. HiramShadraski 21:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See wikt:alignment, specifically definition 1. It's the route of the road. --NE2 06:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] plagiarism

The removal of a lot of references in the text makes this now a clear cut case of plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.68.76 (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the plagiarism concern -- is there a copyright violation in this article?
See this discussion about spam:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)