Talk:Singapore 2006

Singapore 2006 was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 18, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 9, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Name[edit]

Should this article be called by its official name Singapore 2006 as per the local organisers, or by the unweldy name of 2006 Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group by the IMF?--Huaiwei 04:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er...any responses?--Huaiwei 15:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imo, Singapore 2006 is more appropriate as it is a cluster of events including the Biennale, Raffles Forum, meetings of the G8s, G10s and G24s etc. But a community poll should be done, on the name of the article. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support Singapore 2006. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With only a few days left, I am going to effect the move now. Do not worry about changing all links, however, as it may still be neccesary to refer to this as the "61st IMF meeting" and so on in the international pages coz the brand hasent caught on universally.--Huaiwei 03:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on outdoor protest section[edit]

I think this section should be placed after "Pre Meeting Events". Looks odd to mention this before describing the "Emblem", etc.Atticuslai 09:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be, its quite weird. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 09:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's much longer than many other important sections. Chensiyuan 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok. Most other sections are underdeveloped anyway. I suppose the "Ban" is enough to fill a seperate article all on its own! :D - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huaiwei (talk • contribs)

be that as it may it contains an inordinate amount of information better suited for a newspaper. Chensiyuan 05:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time there is no public protests[edit]

It is not the first time there is restriction on public protests. There was a precendence when it was conducted in Dubai from September 23 to 24, 2003.

Content[edit]

Content of the event's article is very weak. Do help update and expand all sections. We SGpedians' should be proud of this event, and therefore help more in articles of major events. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 04:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I'm not proud of the barring. John Riemann Soong 18:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a matter of personal views of course. Lets take the views from both sides of the picture and present them factually as is expected in every article in wikipedia.--Huaiwei 02:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erh, please be more selective in the content; long taxi queue and workers without passes are hardly encyclopedic or interesting, ;-). --Vsion 02:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Anyone managed to scout around the area and snap a few shots of those barricades especially? If not...there are only two days left! I cant do it myself coz I am stuck there. :D--Huaiwei 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have it, such as barricades, policemen, the place before the meetings etc. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 14:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any pictures of the "troublemaker"? ;-) --Vsion 21:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not at Hong Lim Park and was still sleeping that morning. ;) I have to take "risk" of taking photos in Suntec area itself, such as the convention centre. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 04:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Parts of this article are written in a Biased way. Needs to be checked.

Which parts, specifically? Aran|heru|nar 13:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA hold[edit]

1)Opening sentence--what is all the bolding for "61st Annual Meetings of the Boards of Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group, only the title should be bolded. 2)There should be no space btwn punctuation and refs, many places need this fixed 3)Preparations section..."Singapore was announced the host of the annual meeting" is very awkward, reword it 4)Preparations section..."After the meetings, the structures within the convention centre will have to be taken down within a period of nine days." Didn't this already occur? 5)Security section...the external jump after "island-wide operations." needs to be a footnote 6)??? a period, two footnotes, and a comma --"t of time. [32][33], later condem" 7)article needs a good copyedit and scrutinizing before GA Rlevse 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the nomination failed or placed on hold? The template says it failed, but the heading says it's placed on hold. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed, I guess its an error in the title heading. Terence Ong 15:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've GA-ified points 1 through 6. I'm not so sure on 7... Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Society Participation[edit]

Has there been any mention of the thousands of civil society participants who were granted accreditation to the World Bank Annual meetings and subsequently boycotted the event due to numerous detentions and interrogations at the Singapore airport? Also, there was a large alternative forum held in nearby Indonesia for the NGOs from around the world.

The references in this article are in large part from Channel News Asia which is a Singapore based media outlet with a quite apparent slant on the events that took place. Are there alternative sources that could shed some more light on the opinions of many civil society groups? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtbic (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Of course there could. Please feel free to do your homework. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 12:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could cite the sources from CNA and find news materials for such stuff, sure. Why not? Be bold! Terence Ong 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]