Talk:economic blockade

economic blockade
Blockade of an economic nature. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: So, Mglovesfun is now wiki-stalking me through my the entries that I have added to Wiktionary. I find it not only disturbing but sad that an editor like Mglovesfun has been given the power to not only nominate an entry for deletion, but to actually delete an entry!  Very sad indeed!  WritersCramp 15:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be commenting on me to avoid commenting on the entry. BTW looking at your history, it's not just me, it's every Wiktionary editor. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the one nominating, so support your nomination, as of now I see nothing. WritersCramp 15:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I repeat, do you have any comment? Your tactic simply seems to discredit the nominator instead of affirming that the entry meets CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I changed the definition (please correct it if needed). I find this definition useful and, if defining a phrase is useful, then creating the page for the phrase, with this definition, is also useful. Lmaltier 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I just don't see it as a set phrase. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 20:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No hits on OneLook. Doesn't even have its own Wikipedia page. And its meaning does not go beyond the sum of parts as far as I can tell. By the way, WritersCramp, please refrain from making personal attacks on a user such as Mglovesfun who has contributed so much to this project. If someone nominates an entry for deletion there is no need to take it personally - no one owns anything on Wiktionary and every entry is up for modification and, sometimes, deletion. If you feel so passionate about it, try to argue for its inclusion according to criteria set out in the CFI. Cheers. ---&gt; Tooironic 23:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I get Google hits: About 682,000 results (0.38 seconds) and Google Scholar hits: Results 1 - 10 of about 5,400. (0.10 sec) and Google Books hits: About 71,400 results (0.39 seconds), seems like your OneLook is a red herring to me. WritersCramp 23:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you feel that the definition is useful, or not? I am convinced that it would be useful to some readers. Lmaltier 06:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I assume this is a nomination under the sum-of-parts head. Let us have a look at the parts:
 * economic - pertaining to an economy (I have ruled out the other senses)
 * blockade - The isolation of something, especially a port, in order to prevent commerce and traffic in or out.
 * economic blockade, pre Lmaltier by WritersCramp - The use by a State of measures whose primary effect is to harm the economy of another State.
 * economic blockade by Lmaltier - The use by a State of measures whose primary objective is to harm the economy of another State by blocking international trade involving the State.
 * Some questions:
 * Is there some non-economic blockade?
 * If blockade is there in order to prevent commerce and traffic (which is what the definition of "blockade" says), how can a blockade be non-economic?
 * Does "economic blockade" always involve blocking of ports?
 * What are several examples of economic blockades?
 * --Dan Polansky 08:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to comment: economic blockade does not necessarily involve physical blocking of the harbours. South Africa and Cuba are examples of countries that have been targets of an economic blockade, but the traffic to and from their ports was not restricted by naval or other force, at least not throughout the duration of the blockade. The countries participating in the blockade used other means to discourage trade with the blocked countries, such as punishing companies that do trade with them. And of course the harbours of landlocked countries cannot be blocked! On the other hand, no one has claimed that economic blockade would be synonymous to blocking the harbours. All in all, the entry appears quite SoP-ish to me. --Hekaheka 17:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What happened when South Africa was a target of an economic blockade; what did the economic blockade consist in? --Dan Polansky 12:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One can have political, cultural, fuel, commercial, financial, banking, etc. blockades. There are enough instances of "economic and X blockade" to show it is not a set phrase. Delete. DCDuring TALK 02:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What is a "cultural blockade" and with respect to which sense of "blockade" is it sum-of-parts? Is "cultural blockade" something like "a cultural isolation of something, especially a port, in order to prevent commerce and traffic in or out"? (I know the last question sounds a bit stupid, but it is what you get from the assumption that "cultural blockade" is a blockade that is cultural using the current definition of "blockade".) --Dan Polansky 12:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Encyclopaedia material. Equinox ◑ 00:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Switching from "comment" to "keep". When I am thinking it over, it becomes quite clear that I want to keep this entry. I would really want to know what the heck is an "economic blockade" and what the heck is a "cultural blockade". If and when the entry "blockade" provides clear answers to these questions, then "economic blockade" and "cultural blockade" can be deleted. But given the current state of the entry "blockade", it is the entries for "economic blockade" and "cultural blockade" that should help me to find the answer to the ultimate dictionary question: what the heck does it mean. --Dan Polansky 12:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not take a run at improving the definition? Or at inserting ? This is a wiki, after all. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * DCDuring you are the one that wants the definition deleted, yet you are requesting another editor to improve the definition...it is admins like you that are ruining Wiktionary and stopping it from reaching its full potential as the greatest dictionary in the world! WritersCramp 14:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sense added. Argument thereby rendered moot. DCDuring TALK 13:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not know what "economic blockade" and "cultural blockade" are, so I cannot add the definition. It seems that it is your business to explain clearly what "economic blockade" and "cultural blockade" are, and show that they are really sum-of-parts, given that you voted for "delete". You have now added the definition "Any form of formal isolation of something, especially with the force of law or arms" to "blockade". So is "cultural blockade" a "cultural form of formal isolation of something, especially with the force of law or arms"? Or is it "a form of cultural formal isolation of something, especially with the force of law or arms?" Or is it "cultural formal isolation of something, especially with the force of law or arms?" I cannot say that wholly understand the phrases, or that I could give an instance of "cultural blockade". --Dan Polansky 13:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the mysteries of polysemy. It is so hard to define terms to everyone's satisfaction. Tea? Talk:blockade?
 * In any event many of your issues seem quite beyond the scope of a dictionary. I'm not sure that there are any lexicographic resources that can help. Google can help. And isn't it fortunate that we have as resource our sister project, Wikipedia, which has Blockade (disambiguation), the articles one is led to thereto, search for mention of the concept, and mechanisms for requesting whatever encyclopedic subjects they do not yet have? DCDuring TALK 15:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete First definition was an SoP, second is too lengthy, bordering on encyclopedic. TeleComNasSprVen 21:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Three keeps versus six deletes. I'd class this as a fail; may as well let the debate carry on for a week, if anyone wants to comment. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)