Talk:1999 Seattle WTO protests

Unused sources

• The Black Bloc Papers: An Anthology of Primary Texts From The North American Anarchist Black Bloc 1988–2005, by Xavier Massot & David Van Deusen, Breaking Glass Press, Shawnee Mission, KS, 2010. ISBN 0-9791671-0-8
• Christopher DeLaurenti N30: Live at the WTO Protest, November 30, 1999 and N30: Who Guards the Guardians Audio pieces made from live field recordings at the scene and police scanner recordings captured at N30.
• Parrish, Geov. "Beyond Gandhi". Seattle Weekly. November 24, 1999.
• Gates, Rhoderick. "Seattle Explosion: 2 Years Too Late". Our Time, November 31, 1999.
• Movie This Is What Democracy Looks Like.
• George, Susan Fixing or nixing the WTO Le Monde diplomatique, January 2000.
• Monbiot, George Still bent on world conquest, Guardian, London, December 16, 1999
• Highleyman, Liz (1999). "Scenes from the Battle of Seattle". Black Rose Web Pages. Retrieved March 28, 2008.
• The Battle of Seattle : "Globalize This!" – on the Internet Archived September 6, 2018, at the Wayback Machine Globalize This! : The Battle Against the World Trade Organization and Corporate Rule, edited by Kevin Danaher & Roger Burbach (Monroe, Maine, Common Courage Press, 2000, 218 pages)
• Almeida, Paul D. and Mark I. Lichbach. 2003. “To the Internet, from the Internet: Comparative Media Coverage of Transnational Protest.” Mobilization 8(3): 249–272 (October)

Moved from the article; feel free to restore where needed, if reliable. czar 18:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2024

1999 Seattle WTO protests → Battle of Seattle – I'm opening a discussion for moving this title to "Battle of Seattle", as I believe it to be the common name for these protests. For years, this is the name by which I've heard these protests described. This appears to be born out in the sources too, as Google Scholar search results give 5,800 results for "Battle of Seattle";[1] while "Seattle WTO protests" gets only 659 results.[2]

I can understand why the "Seattle WTO protests" title was used, as it sounds more dry and descriptive. But going by common name policy, I think "Battle of Seattle" is probably what we should be using for this. So as this is a potentially controversial move, I'm opening a discussion here. What are your thoughts on this? Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Toadspike [Talk] 10:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Reliable secondary sources (such as The Seattle Times, HistoryLink, and The New York Times) use "Seattle WTO protests" pretty much across the board. For the first two, there are a number of results for the 1856 Battle of Seattle mixed in as well, so natural disambiguation is preferred. SounderBruce 10:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Fwiw, even with disambiguators it appears to be more common: "Battle of Seattle" "1999" gets 4,990 hits;[3] "Battle of Seattle" "protests" gets 3,680;[4] "Battle of Seattle" "WTO" gets 3,020;[5] "Battle of Seattle" "WTO" "protests" "1999" gets 2,160 hits.[6] --Grnrchst (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Offhand, I recall "Battle of Seattle" being more common in partisan sources, more widely known in mainstream sources as the WTO protests (in Seattle), or some similar formation per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) even if it's not a string match for "Seattle WTO protests" verbatim. Bruce surfaced some sources and I'd expect the same with further searching in mainstream sources for a common name. czar 12:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Czar. The current title is more objective, descriptive, and understandable, and is closer to what is used by objective sources such as University of Washington and Seattle Met. "Battle of Seattle" is a clickbait title chosen for sensationalism. A descriptive title doesn't need to be an exact phrase match. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose "Battle" implies back and forth combat. The protestors didn't really fight back other than being disruptive. Rager7 (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)